It's come up a few times. The value seems fairly low for the cost.
I have no doubt it can be made to work, but it'd be harder to get
right and the end result would be a savings of a file descriptor or
two in a mixed protocol installation.
Of course, if someone wants to spend some time trying to build this
single-listener mechanism, I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. I
just haven't heard a compelling enough argument to convince I'd to
take on the complexity myself.
--
Dustin Sallings (mobile)
On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:36, Roy Lyseng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have a question around the protocol support in memcached:
Is there any (good) reason for registering one port per protocol in
memcached? We have the text protocol, the binary protocol, and yet
other protocols are in the coming. Would it be better to listen on a
single port per IP protocol (TCP or UDP) and dispatch subprotocol
requests internally? We could e.g. let the first byte in a packet
determine the subprotocol (text protocol reserves all lower-case
ASCII letters...) and then dispatch the socket to the proper
subprotocol handler.
I am afraid of the myriad of options that will be needed to
configure a memcached server. It would be great if we only need one
option per IP protocol. Besides, it will make it easier for us if we
decide to register official IANA ports for memcached.
Roy
