[PD] Netreceive + osc issue

[Roman Haefeli]

On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 21:41 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 3/24/21 21:02, Rick Snow wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I wonder if anyone can help me out with this issue.
> > 
> > I’m receiving an OSC message using [netreceive -u -b 7002] from
> > another piece of software on the same computer.  Netreceive is
> > producing an error in the console reading:
> > 
> > “recv (bin): a message sent on a datagram socket was larger than
> > the internal message buffer or some other network limit, or the
> > buffer used to receive a datagram into was smaller than the
> > datagram itself. (10040)”
> > 
> 
> there has been discussion at [903] about enlarging the network buffer
> to 
> the maximum possible frame size for UDP packages.

Alternatively, you could use [udpreceive] from iemnet that doesn't have
this limit set.

> 
> right now that size is rather small (4096 bytes), which is usually 
> enough for real networked traffic (as most networking components
> will 
> impose a default maximum package size of 1500 bytes),

Datagrams larger than the MTU are split into smaller segments fitting
into the MTU. On the receiving end the segments are re-assembled to
restore the original datagram (I'm not sure which but I believe this is
done by a lower layer of the network stack). It's still not advised to
use larger datagrams than the MTU because if any of the segments is
lost the whole datagram is lost. 

>  but when the 
> computer is "networking" with itself (communicating via "localhost") 
> that limit can be easily blown.
> 
> until the corresponding PR [1122] is accepted (and there is a bit of 
> reluctance accepting it),

That's actually sad. I'm in favor of the maximum size supported by
UDP. 
Roman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210324/ee0b793d/attachment.sig>