On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Brian Utterback wrote: > It seems backwards to me because: > > 1. The purpose of fused connections was to reduce the TCP baggage, > not introduce more.
This seems wrong to me. Fused connections are needed to realize the better performance that one would expect from being all-local. No ACKs are needed, for example, because there are no packet drops. And both nodes know exactly how much buffer space their peer has. There is still a need for flow control though. IMO that flow control needs to be about free buffer space in the receiver, but if we have STREAMS in the way and it can consume additional resources (from a finite pool) then the flow control needs to flow down the STREAMS as well. I find this 8 message thing as lame as you do. But I don't understand STREAMS well enough, much less TCP fusion to offer alternatives. > 2. As far as I know, no other IPC method imposes this kind of flow > control. Why single out TCP? Pipes certainly impose flow control! Most other IPC are not stream-oriented, but there's still some flow control (e.g., door_call() can block if the server's threads are all busy and no new ones can be created). Either you have flow-control on unreliable IPC: resources are finite. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
