Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6906017
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T08:15:18+00:00 2026-05-27T08:15:18+00:00

On Linux (Kernel 3.0.0.12; C++ with GCC 4.6.1) I want to send shortly after

  • 0

On Linux (Kernel 3.0.0.12; C++ with GCC 4.6.1) I want to send shortly after each other a few TCP-packets via (POSIX) send-call.

With Wireshark I can see that the packets weren’t sent in separate TCP-frames, but two or more were sent together in one packet.

Is there any way to tell the system to send data from one send()-buffer in own TCP-packet? The programmflow shouldn’t block at the send-call.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T08:15:19+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 8:15 am

    Your TCP stack is implementing Nagle’s algorithm trying to increase efficiency by buffering data. Its a common optimization where the intent is amortize the cost of the 40+ byte (TCP + IP) header. Instead of sending multiple small packets, the stack buffers the data and combines them into a larger packet thereby reducing the header overhead.

    TCP stacks don’t buffer indefinitely though. As long as there is some un-acknowledged sent data on the connection, the sender continues to buffer. The next packet is sent out when:

    • A full packet worth of data is available to be sent OR
    • All previously sent data is acknowledged by the receiver

    You can usually disable this by setting the TCP_NODELAY socket option.

    setsockopt(sock_fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, (char *) &flag, sizeof(int));
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Say we want to compile a large project (say GCC or the Linux kernel)
While trying to compile a 64 bit linux kernel using gcc, I see the
This pertains to Linux kernel 2.6 TCP sockets. I am sending a large amount
The linux kernel (and various other projects including git) have very nice makefiles that
On Linux (kernel 2.6.5) our build system calls gcc with -D_REENTRANT . Is this
After reading up on this answer and Linux Kernel Development by Robert Love and,
I have two Slackware Linux systems on which the POSIX semaphore sem_open() call fails
in Linux kernel source code, I find below code: h++; pending >>= 1; It
Is Linux Kernel scheduler a part of init process? My understanding is that it
Before Linux kernel 2.6, super_operations (include/linux/fs.h) have both read_inode and write_inode functions. But newer

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.