I have seen dozens on a box. -- ..Cheers Mark
On 9/18/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How many network devices exist in SunOS? > > Thanks! > Trustin > > On 9/18/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On SunOS 5.10 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V890 > > > > java version "1.5.0_01" > > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_01-b08) > > Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 1.5.0_01-b08, mixed mode) > > > > Open: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234) > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=2 cap=2048: 00 00] > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > Received: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > unbound > > Closed: (datagram, server, /10.0.0.120:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234) > > > > Maarten > > > > On 9/18/07, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On linux 2.6.9, jdk 1.6 > > > > > > Local host: mortimer/172.30.6.12 > > > Open: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234) > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=2 cap=2048: 00 00] > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > > unbound > > > Closed: (datagram, server, /172.30.6.12:5678 => /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234) > > > > > > Adding a virtual interface (eth0:0) doesn't make a difference. > > > Maarten > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Maarten Bosteels < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Trustin, > > > > > > > > I ran the code on Windows XP jdk 1.6 , and this is the output I got: > > > > > > > > Local host: kweenie/172.29.100.104 > > > > Open: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234) > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=2 cap=2048: 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=3 cap=2048: 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234), > > > > HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=4 cap=2048: 00 00 00 00] > > > > Closed: (datagram, server, /172.29.100.104:5678 => /0.0.0.0:1234) > > > > unbound > > > > > > > > I changed the code a little bit, to be able to distinguish the > messages. > > > > > > > > Also added a sleep before the unbind, (I think there's one line > missing > > > > in your output :-) > > > > > > > > f1.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(1)).await(); > > > > f1.getSession().write( ByteBuffer.allocate(2)).await(); > > > > > > > > f2.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(3)).await(); > > > > f2.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(4)).await(); > > > > > > > > Thread.sleep(2000); > > > > acceptor.unbind(); > > > > System.out.println ("unbound"); > > > > System.exit(0); > > > > > > > > The messages sent to the broadcast address are received multiple > times: > > > > twice per enabled network connection. > > > > When I enable all 4 network interfaces (LAN, wireless LAN and two > > > > virtual ones for VMWare) I receive them 8 times ! > > > > > > > > Maarten > > > > > > > > On 9/17/07, Trustin Lee < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I made a lot of changes to the current datagram implementation in > > > > > trunk. DatagramAcceptor now collaborates with DatagramConnector > to > > > > > create connected datagram socket which listens to the remote > address > > > > > of the received packet. The following is simplified description > of > > > > > flow: > > > > > > > > > > * DatagramAcceptor's underlying DatagramChannel.receive is invoked > > > > > * Once data is received, new connected datagram session is created > > > > > using DatagramConnector.connect(receivedRemoteAddress, > > > > > acceptor.getLocalAddress()). If there's already a session > instance > > > > > associated with the remote address, it's reused. > > > > > > > > > > The advantages of this implementation are: > > > > > > > > > > * The acceptor-side datagram sessions can perform much better in > > > > > multi-core environment. > > > > > * There's no need for IoSessionRecycler on the acceptor-side > anymore. > > > > > You have full control over disconnection; probably using > sessionIdle > > > > > event in most cases. > > > > > * Code duplication can be reduced once again, and most part of the > > > > > existing acceptor code can be extracted into a generic acceptor > > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > > > The disadvantage is that it forces you to set reuseAddress to > true, > > > > > because multiple datagram channels are bound to the same local > > > > > address. > > > > > > > > > > In Linux, connected datagram channels have priority over > unconnected > > > > > channels, so most traffic will go directly into > DatagramConnector's > > > > > NIOProcessors. The only exception I've found is broadcast > packets. It > > > > > is always received from the unconnected channel in > DatagramAcceptor. > > > > > DatagramAcceptor immediately forwards the event to an appropriate > > > > > session that DatagramConnector is managing, or creates a new > session > > > > > using connect(). > > > > > > > > > > I think this behavior won't have any big differences among > different > > > > > platforms (e.g. Windows and SUNOS). As long as multiple datagram > > > > > channels can be bound to the same local address, this > implementation > > > > > should work fine. To make this sure, please run the following > test > > > > > code in your machine, and let me know what the result is: > > > > > > > > > > -------- CODE BEGINS -------- > > > > > package net.gleamynode.tmp; > > > > > > > > > > import java.net.InetAddress; > > > > > import java.net.InetSocketAddress; > > > > > > > > > > import org.apache.mina.common.ByteBuffer; > > > > > import org.apache.mina.common.ConnectFuture; > > > > > import org.apache.mina.common.IoHandlerAdapter ; > > > > > import org.apache.mina.common.IoSession; > > > > > import org.apache.mina.transport.socket.nio.DatagramAcceptor; > > > > > import org.apache.mina.transport.socket.nio.DatagramConnector; > > > > > > > > > > public class Main { > > > > > > > > > > private static final int SERVER_PORT = 1234; > > > > > private static final int CLIENT_PORT = 5678; > > > > > > > > > > public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception { > > > > > DatagramAcceptor acceptor = new DatagramAcceptor(); > > > > > acceptor.setLocalAddress (new > InetSocketAddress(SERVER_PORT)); > > > > > > > > > > acceptor.setHandler(new IoHandlerAdapter() { > > > > > @Override > > > > > public void sessionOpened(IoSession session) { > > > > > System.out.println("Open: " + session); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @Override > > > > > public void sessionClosed(IoSession session) { > > > > > System.out.println("Closed: " + session); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @Override > > > > > public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object > o) { > > > > > > > > > > System.out.println("Received: " + session + ", " + > o); > > > > > } > > > > > }); > > > > > acceptor.bind(); > > > > > > > > > > DatagramConnector connector = new DatagramConnector(); > > > > > connector.getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true); > > > > > connector.setHandler(new IoHandlerAdapter() { > > > > > @Override > > > > > public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object > o) { > > > > > System.out.println("ERR?"); > > > > > } > > > > > }); > > > > > > > > > > // Print the local host. > > > > > System.out.println("Local host: " + > InetAddress.getLocalHost > > > > > ()); > > > > > > > > > > // Try point-to-point. > > > > > ConnectFuture f1 = connector.connect( > > > > > new InetSocketAddress( > > > > > InetAddress.getLocalHost(), SERVER_PORT), > > > > > new InetSocketAddress( > > > > > InetAddress.getLocalHost(), > CLIENT_PORT)); > > > > > f1.await(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > f1.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(1)).await(); > > > > > f1.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(1)).await(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > // Try broadcast. > > > > > ConnectFuture f2 = connector.connect( > > > > > new InetSocketAddress( > > > > > " 255.255.255.255", SERVER_PORT), > > > > > new InetSocketAddress( > > > > > InetAddress.getLocalHost(), CLIENT_PORT)); > > > > > > > > > > f2.await(); > > > > > f2.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(1)).await(); > > > > > f2.getSession().write(ByteBuffer.allocate(1)).await(); > > > > > > > > > > acceptor.unbind(); > > > > > > > > > > System.exit(0); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > -------- CODE ENDS -------- > > > > > > > > > > The expected result is: > > > > > > > > > > -------- RESULT BEGINS -------- > > > > > Local host: primary/127.0.0.1 > > > > > Open: (datagram, server, /127.0.0.1:5678 => /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234) > > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /127.0.0.1:5678 => > > > > > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /127.0.0.1:5678 => > > > > > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > > > > Received: (datagram, server, /127.0.0.1:5678 => > > > > > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234), HeapBuffer[pos=0 lim=1 cap=2048: 00] > > > > > Closed: (datagram, server, /127.0.0.1:5678 => > /0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1234) > > > > > -------- RESULT ENDS -------- > > > > > > > > > > If this test fails on any platform that runs Java 5, I am doomed > to > > > > > revert my changes. :) > > > > > > > > > > Trustin > > > > > -- > > > > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > > > > -- > > > > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > > > > -- > > > > > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ > -- > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 >