htt daemon eating up my internet connection

Paul Dussault pdussault at gwi.net
Mon Nov 28 22:05:00 EST 2005


Thanks everyone who responded. I have learned a lot and fixed the problem too.

Here's what I did:

[root at dionysus pdussault]# grep -Elr \\Whtt\\W /etc/rc.d/init.d
/etc/rc.d/init.d/IIim

Ah, it's IIim.

Then I used chkconfig to get rid of it.

Works great!

Thanks again to all.

Paul





On Wednesday 23 November 2005 11:19 am, gnhlug-discuss-request at mail.gnhlug.org 
wrote:
> Send gnhlug-discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	gnhlug-discuss-request at mail.gnhlug.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	gnhlug-discuss-admin at mail.gnhlug.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gnhlug-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Threads and TCP/IP (Thomas Charron)
>    2. Re: Sound broken by Synaptic. Anyone else? Any thoughts (Bill
> Freeman) 3. Re: Threads and TCP/IP (Kevin D. Clark)
>    4. htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Paul Dussault)
>    5. RE: htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Brian)
>    6. Re: htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Andrew W. Gaunt)
>    7. Re: htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Andrew W. Gaunt)
>    8. Re: htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Bill McGonigle)
>    9. Re: htt daemon eating up my internet connection (Ben Scott)
>   10. Re: Threads and TCP/IP (Thomas Charron)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:24:17 -0500
> From: Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com>
> To: gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> Subject: Re: Threads and TCP/IP
>
> ------=_Part_31355_27173049.1132680257288
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On 11/21/05, Cole Tuininga <colet at code-energy.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:18 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> > > Yes, one could say 'What about at the same time', but there really
> > > isn't such a thing.. ;-)
> >
> > Even on an SMP machine?
>
>   For the most part, yes. Even with multiple processors, ONE of the
> processes is going to get to that memory first. ;-)
>
> > Just please, for the love of god, dont have multiple threads trying
> >
> > > to WRITE to the socket at the same time. Oh, it'll work.. But the
> > > data won't look pretty unless the data packets are REALLY small.
> >
> > *heh* Yeah - I know better than to try that. 8)
>
>   In a prototype I wrote a long while ago, I accidently assumed that small
> packets would go out immediatly, with multiple threads. Every once and a
> while, the datastream got mangled becouse the buffers ended up with data
> being intermingled.
>   As a side note, it IS perfectly ok to do this with datagram data. In my
> case, I had the application have the ability to use either, using the same
> structure, either streamed over TCP, or sent as UDP. Hence, my mistake..
> ;-= )
>   It was an additional request later on in the development process, and
> caused me to have to rework some things a bit..
>   Thomas
>
> ------=_Part_31355_27173049.1132680257288
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> <div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 11/21/05, <b
> class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>
> >Cole Tuininga</b> &lt;<a
> > href=3D"mailto:colet at code-energy.com">colet at code-=
>
> energy.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px
> 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:18
> -050= 0, Thomas Charron wrote:<br>&gt; Yes, one could say 'What about at
> the same= time', but there really
> <br>&gt; isn't such a thing..&nbsp;&nbsp;;-)<br>Even on an SMP
> machine?</bl= ockquote>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp; For the most part, yes.&nbsp; Even with multiple processors,
> ON= E of the processes is going to get to that memory first.&nbsp;
> ;-)</div><br=
>
> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px
> 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just please,
> fo= r the love of god, dont have multiple threads trying<br>&gt; to WRITE
> to th= e socket at the same time.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, it'll
> work..&nbsp;&nbsp;But the <br>&gt; data won't look pretty unless the data
> packets are REALLY small.<b= r>*heh*&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah - I know better than
> to try that.&nbsp;&nbsp;8)</bl= ockquote>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp; In a prototype I wrote a long while ago, I accidently assumed
> t= hat small packets would go out immediatly, with multiple threads.&nbsp;
> Eve= ry once and a while, the datastream got mangled becouse the buffers
> ended u= p with data being intermingled.
> </div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp; As a side note, it IS perfectly ok to do this with datagram
> dat= a.&nbsp; In my case, I had the application have the ability to use
> either, = using the same structure, either streamed over TCP, or sent as
> UDP.&nbsp; H= ence, my mistake..&nbsp; ;-)
> </div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp; It was an additional request later on in the development
> proces= s, and caused me to have to rework some things a bit..</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp; Thomas</div><br>&nbsp;</div>
>
> ------=_Part_31355_27173049.1132680257288--
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: Bill Freeman <f at ke1g.mv.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:08:05 -0500
> To: Greg Rundlett <greg.rundlett at gmail.com>
> Cc: gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> Subject: Re: Sound broken by Synaptic. Anyone else? Any thoughts
>
> Greg Rundlett writes:
>  > believed I was running Sarge after it became stable, I am in fact
>  > still running testing (which means no security updates).
>
> 	I hadn't realized that.  I guess that the laptop in question
> is pretty safe, since it runs no services, lives behind a
> firewall/router, and I don't even read mail on it.  But I'll have to
> keep that in mind.
>
> 	You'ld think that security updates would have to be "tested".
>
> 							Bill
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> To: gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> Subject: Re: Threads and TCP/IP
> From: kevin_d_clark at comcast.net (Kevin D. Clark)
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:20:23 -0500
>
> Thomas Charron writes:
> > On 11/21/05, Cole Tuininga wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:18 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> >> > Yes, one could say 'What about at the same time', but there really
> >> > isn't such a thing.. ;-)
> >>
> >> Even on an SMP machine?
> >
> >   For the most part, yes. Even with multiple processors, ONE of the
> > processes is going to get to that memory first. ;-)
>
> On SMP machines things happen simultaneously all the time.  Things get
> intermingled a lot too.  Even on uniprocessor machines things can seem
> to be happening simultaneously.  So, you are wrong.
>
> I for one am really not comfortable with the cavilier manner that you
> are dispensing "advice" about threads programming.
>
> --kevin



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list