netdev - Re: What's the status of TCP friends?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:27:03 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Li Yu <bingtian.ly@...bao.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Bruce Brutus Curtis <brutus@...gle.com>,
	Weiping Pan <panweiping3@...il.com>, tmorvai@...il.com
Subject: Re: What's the status of TCP friends?

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:03:20 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 11:13 +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> 
> > That sounds great!  But it might not satisfy our requirement.  If we use
> > AF_UNIX our program will not be deployed on two servers.  Meanwhile
> > AF_INET has been applied in our program to communicate with other
> > clients.  So DGRAM seems that it is not a good idea.  Now our program
> > needs a IPC mechansim that can commnucate between two servers and
> > provide a high performance when two processes are run on the same
> > server.  That is the reason why I am interested in TCP friends.  :)
> 
> TCP friends is another layer added into TCP stack, for what ?
> 
> Improving performance for lazy applications ?
> 
> Really, if you cared about performance, you would have added a way to
> use fast IPC if available.
> 
> TCP friends will still be slower than the available IPC mechanisms, by
> an order of magnitude.
> 
> So instead of spending time on this TCP friends dream, I think you
> should focus on existing and supported mechanisms.
> 
> I for example could add zerocopy support to AF_UNIX, if you think its
> worth it.

I find ZMQ to be a useful API for this. It allows abstracting away the
choice of transport. You can do inprocess, unix and tcp by specifying
different connection in URL like syntax.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html