Subject: Re: TCP/IP listeners
From: David Stuart (David.Stuart@ventura.org)
Date: Mon Nov 09 2009 - 16:51:07 EST
Hi Dave,
We're currently running the IBM TCP/IP Socket Listener. I have 8 defined for one Production application. During certain times of the year, all 8 can be in use.
It's not a problem, and I believe I set it up with IBM assistance and guidance.
Dave
Dave Stuart
Prin. Info. Systems Support Analyst
County of Ventura, CA
805-662-6731
David.Stuart@ventura.org>>> <industrynews@winwholesale.com> 11/9/2009 1:24 PM >>>
owner-vse-l@Lehigh.EDU wrote on 11/09/2009 03:58:30 PM:
> Is there any advantage to having multiple TCPIPSRVICE definitions
> with the same IP address and port # when servicing a high volume of
> concurrent transactions? I have a SOAP application that was
> experiencing frequent connection resets and was unable to find the
> reason. When I added a second listener the problem seemed to have
> gone away.
My understanding is that you shouldn't (or, legitimately, can't?)
have more than one listener on the same IP address for the same port. I'd
be interested in any correction to my understanding. As for high volumes,
I've also been told that if the listener is written correctly, you'd have
to consistently have more than 64 simultaneous connections attempted
before you'd have trouble. Of course, in CICS, you'd be in trouble,
anyway, trying to handle that many spawned child processes at the same
time.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
WinWholesale Group Services
3110 Kettering Boulevard
Dayton, Ohio 45439 USA
(937) 294-5331
This email message and any attachments is for use only by the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential, privileged and/or proprietary
information. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete and destroy the message and all
copies. All unauthorized direct or indirect use or disclosure of this
message is strictly prohibited. No right to confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any error in transmission.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Nov 22 2009 - 16:20:06 EST