Using loopback you would still need to watch out for dropping datagrams under very high load, because you can overflow the receive buffer but it might be possible to solve this by setting the DatagramChannel receive buffer significantly higher than the send buffer (200k/8k) and assumes that the selector read/writes are somewhat fair..
R/Lee -----Original Message----- From: Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, Sep 14, 2007 11:57 am Subject: Re: slightly OT: how to write an NIO provider To: Reply- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: dev@mina.apache.org On loopback you won't drop UDP packets, that's the trick ;) On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:49:14 -0400 Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think even I am getting confused. I have a group of processes on a box that will always be on the same box, so I was looking for a fast way for them to communicate. My options are: TCP over loopback Unix Domain Sockets Pipes Pipes will not fulfill my needs, so I was looking into Unix Domain Sockets(UDS). Since there are no NIO providers for UDS, I was interested in writing my own and that is when I posed the question to the list. But if TCP over loopback is not going to be any faster than UDS, then I will stick with TCP over loopback. UDP is not an option because I cannot drop packets. Sorry for the confusion. I hope this clears things up. Thank you.
