On Friday, May 8, 2009 at 4:47:53 AM UTC+2, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <>,
> Jorgen Grahn <> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 May 2009 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz
> > <> wrote:
> > > On May 5, 9:16�pm, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do you know this for a fact, or are you just guessing?
> > >
> > > I know for a fact that his code is broken and it's giving him problems
> > > other people don't have. The only way to prove causality is for him to
> > > fix his code and demonstrate that he still has the problem. He has to
> > > fix it anyway.
> > >
> > >>�Why does it
> > >> return this error code in that case, surely there must be a more
> > >> appropriate code, since this has nothing to do with permissions.
> > >
> > > It has everything to do with permissions. Only 'root' is permitted to
> > > use network resources in anti-social ways. Ordinary users are subject
> > > to rational limits.
> >
> > You need to provide references for this I think ...
>
> I'd also like to see that. I've never heard of any Unix-type system
> that checks for "anti-social" behavior. Either you have permission to
> use a resource or you don't. While it's certainly possible to implement
> rate limiting in the network driver, I've never heard of Linux actually
> doing so, certainly not by default.
>
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I see this error on day-to-day basis
and it has everything to do that I am sending UDP packets without rate
control. What is interesting is that - at least on my testing servers - if we
turn off iptables
completely we don't witness this problem. I wonder is iptables somehow causing
EPERM.
I don't know are Google Groups the right venue for sending this email. Hoping
that somebody will see this :)
Best,
Rade
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
