Hello there, --- Chandrashekhar Mullaparthi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> packets. The point to > note is (and you probably know this) that the choice > of transport > shouldn't be based on the raw speed you can achieve > but the > requirements your application has. [snip] My requirements are very simple. I need to make use of a protocol that is low on cpu cycles and also offers reliability. TCP proves itself on the reliability front but is a high on cpu cycles. While on the UDP front i have performed some basic tests. The raw througput in terms of bytes/s is almost to an order 1/2 that of TCP for the same message size, for the same no of clients over the same interval. As of now...i need to find the which among TCP-UDP offers the best throughput. Addressing Error handling at the application layer and larger CPU cycle consumption is the next step. What do you think about this?. Am using simple sendto() and recvfrom() calls for UDP while the normal connect-send-recv calls on TCP. Trevor > > cheers > Chandru > > > -- > http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers > |------|____________________________________|------| ( >- / Scaling FreeSoftware & OpenSource \ -< ) /~\ / In the Enterprise \ /~\ | \) \ | www.fsf.org | www.opensource.org | / (/ | |_|_ \____________________________________/ _|_| ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
