Re: Sockets

Dave Higton, on 7 Feb, wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:38:10 GMT Geoffrey Baxendale wrote:
>
> > In message <c42a61d553.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>
> > Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In message <mpro.n0iifp008cgrh041t.pittdj@pittdj.co.uk>
> >> David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> > > > I have resurrected a Socket Counter application, !SockCtr, which
> > > > dates back to the time when Oregano2 managed to do a similar trick.
> > > > It is a frontend to David Ruck's SocketCount.
> >>>
> > > > http://pittdj.co.uk/software/index.htm
[snip]
> > As far as I can tell, 1614 is OK and 1635 not. Don't have any builds
> > between those here. When I have more time I will try and narrow it down
> > further. (All Non JS)
>
> Geoff, can you use SockCtr and see if 1614 reclaims sockets under the same
> circumstances as 1356? This is worth adding to the bug report.

Or try #1699, bug 2064 is now marked as resolved.

The socket count has not gone below 60 here so far, having started at 90 on
the Raspberry Pi.

--
David Pitt