I really do not forsee any high load on the loopback. I am more interested in allowing the processing of data from outside the box to have as much of the CPU as possible and I think Unix Domain Sockets are less of a load on a CPU than TCP/UDP over loopback.
On 15 Sep 2007 09:13:00 -0400, Lee Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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]: [email protected] > > 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. > > > > -- ..Cheers Mark
