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
>
