🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm posting a response to give some test results.

I wrote a simple Win Application using a TIdTCPServer object dropped on a TForm window.  There are multiple bindings to this  server.  When active, using the command line "netstat /a" shows the bound ports in listening mode.  Once a client connects, a TCP connection is shown as ESTABLISHED.  When the conversation is over and the associated DisconnectSocket method is called, the connection completely disappears from the netstat display data.  However, if I look at the netstat data when using my full windows application, after a DisconnectSocket call, I see the connection in a TIME-WAIT state.  If another connection is attempted with the same client that's when I see the long delay in establishing the full socket.

Is there something that call be done from the INDY object/api level to eliminate the TIME-WAIT condition?  Could it be that the Windows socket layer sees buffered data and that causes the TIME-WAIT state to be entered?

Thanks,
Paul Mac

"Paul Machiaverna" <paul.machiaverna@i-stat.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Gambit,
>
>I downloaded INDY 9, made a couple of minor, necessary changes to my code and tested the application.  Unfortunately, there is still the problem of having slow listener responses to incoming connections.  I used a network sniffer and determined that the remote client is sending TCP SYN packets in the attempt to make a connection with the server.  It can take up to 50 seconds for the server to reply with the TCP SYN ACK.  In the mean time, the client keeps sending TCP SYN approx. every 800 ms.
>
>I'm at a loss right now as to what I can change in the XP network settings or in code to test what may be cause this large response delay.
>
>Again, this problem is on machines running Windows XP Professional.  We do not see this on NT4 or 2000.
>
>Thanks, 
>PaulMac
>
>
>"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>"PaulMacCnj" <paul.machiaverna@i-stat.com> wrote in message
>>news:41339214@newsgroups.borland.com...
>>
>>> Sorry, my mistake.  I saw the Indy files in the C5 directory
>>> and interpreted that as it's version instead of what it really
>>> is; BCB 5.  We are using an 8.x version.  I not sure where
>>> to read the specific version but most of the source files are
>>> dated June 14, 2001.
>>
>>Indy 8 is very old.  I agree with Don that you should upgrade to the latest
>>snapshot of Indy 9 at the least.
>>
>>> As for using a later version of Indy, will it work with BCB 5?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>Gambit
>