Improved viewer and script communications (Re: [sldev] Puppettering Branch)

[Tateru Nino]

Me? pretty much never. Something must have set those values, but I 
couldn't tell you what it was.

Teravus Ovares wrote:
> *Tateru Nino*
>  
> Interesting, because I have four fully patched WinXP systems that 
> don't have the registry values at all.   There's a discrepancy there, 
> do you regularly apply registry hacks?
>  
> Best Regards
>  
> Teravus
>
>  
> On 6/10/08, *Tateru Nino* <tateru.nino at gmail.com 
> <mailto:tateru.nino at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I've just checked 3 WinXP systems (two with SP2 and one with SP3)
>     and the registry settings for wininet for HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1
>     connections are set to 0xa (10) on all of them.
>     That's
>     HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet
>     Settings MaxConnectionsPerServer  and MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server.
>
>     Teravus Ovares wrote:
>
>         Can anyone confirm that the client does not use a library that
>         respects this 2 connection limitation?   So far in testing, it
>         appears that it does.   When two threads get stuck, it fails
>         to do anything else via http.    We've tried to use HTTP CAPS
>         for inventory, and consistently, when the inventory service
>         runs slow, the client stops making *any* further http requests.
>          Best Regards
>          Teravus
>
>          On 6/9/08, *Tateru Nino* <tateru.nino at gmail.com
>         <mailto:tateru.nino at gmail.com> <mailto:tateru.nino at gmail.com
>         <mailto:tateru.nino at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Actually it is not a mandate. A mandate would be a MUST
>         NOT. This
>            is a SHOULD NOT, specifically:
>            "A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2
>         connections
>            with any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N
>         connections
>            to another server or proxy, where N is the number of
>            simultaneously active users."
>
>            I've got personal knowledge that the author did not intend the
>            above to apply to situations like this. For the substrate
>         to MSIE,
>            however, it is entirely appropriate. Also, the above only
>         applies
>            to persistent connections, not non-persistent connections
>            (applying the same guideline to non-persistent connections
>         would
>            cause problems that this guideline is intended to avoid).
>
>            Just because you're doing HTTP, doesn't make you a part of the
>            Web, and connection considerations in Web architecture over
>         HTTP
>            are different to other architectures over HTTP.
>
>
>
>
>
>            Teravus Ovares wrote:
>
>                I also note, that according to Microsoft's kb article:
>                 "The HTTP 1.1 specification (RFC2616) mandates the
>                two-connection limit. The four-connection limit for
>         HTTP 1.0
>                is a self-imposed restriction that coincides with the
>         standard
>                that is used by a number of popular Web browsers."
>                 You can read the article here:
>                http://support.microsoft.com/kb/183110
>                 You can read the RFC here:
>                http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2616.html
>                 Best Regards
>                 Teravus
>
>
>