----- Diomidis Spinellis's Original Message ----- > > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > * the loss of encription on the channel is certainly something that might > > escape the attention of the user. I also wonder in how many cases you > > really need the extra performance to justify the extra plumbing > > mechanism.
Once you pass a certain order of magnitute, it becomes an overriding priority. Thus the reason why many backup systems are hand crafted. > I felt the need for such functionality when moving GB data between > different machines for creating a disk copy and backup to tape. My > requirements may be atypical, this is why I asked for input. Your requirements are not atypical. There are folks out here dealing with 100s & 1000s of TB. > > * there are subtle implications of your new plumbing in the way > > processes are started. With "A | B | C" the shell first creates the > > pipes, then it can start the processes in any order, and they can > > individually fail to start without any direct consequence other > > than an I/O failure. "A |@ B |@ C" requires that you start things > > from the end of the chain (because you cannot start a process > > until you have a [socket] descriptor from the next stage in the > > chain), and if a process fails to start you cannot even start the > > next one in the sequence. Not that this is bad, just very different > > from regular pipes. > > It is even worse. You can not write "A |@ B |@ C" because sockets are > created on the originating host. For the above to work you would need a > mechanism to create another socket between the B and C machines. Maybe > the syntax should be changed to make such constructions > counterintuitive. Syntactic consistency should be a high priority. -john _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"