David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Chris Friesen <email@example.com>
> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:07:45 -0500
> Suppose I have a process that waits on UDP packets, the unified local
> IPC that we're discussing, other unix sockets, and stdin. It's awfully
> nice if the local IPC can be handled using the same select/poll
> mechanism as all the other messaging.
> So use UDP, you still haven't backed up your performance
> claims. Experiment, set the SO_NO_CHECK socket option to
> "1" and see if that makes a difference performance wise
> for local clients.
I did provide numbers for UDP latency, which is more critical for my own
application since most messages fit within a single packet. I haven't
done UDP bandwidth testing--I need to check how lmbench did it for the
unix socket and do the same for UDP. Local TCP was far slower than unix
> But if performance is "so important", then you shouldn't really be
> shying away from the shared memory suggestion and nothing is going to
> top that (it eliminates all the copies, using flat out AF_UNIX over
> UDP only truly eliminates some header processing, nothing more, the
> copies are still there with AF_UNIX).
Yes, I realize that the receiver still has to do a copy. With large
messages this could be an issue. With small messages, I had assumed
that the cost of a recv() wouldn't be that much worse than the cost of
the sender doing a kill() to alert the receiver that a message is
waiting. Maybe I was wrong.
It might be interesting to try a combination of sysV msg queue and
signals to see how it stacks up. Project for tonight.
-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:00 EST