netdev - Re: many sockets, slow sendto

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

Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:24:16 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Zacco <zacco@...hu>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, baruch@...en.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: many sockets, slow sendto

Zacco a écrit :
> Actually, the source address would be more important in my case, as my 
> clients (each with different IP address) wants to connect to the same 
> server, i.e. to the same address and port.

I dont understand why you need many sockets then.

A single socket should be enough.

> I think, the current design is fair enough for server implementations 
> and for regular clients. But even though my application is not tipical, 
> as far as I know (but it can be important with the fast performance 
> growth of regular PCs), the make-up should be general enough to cope 
> with special circumstances, like mine. My initial idea was to somehow 
> include the complete socket pair, i.e. source address:port and 
> destination address:port, keeping in mind that it should work for both 
> IPv4 and IPv6. Maybe it's an overkill, I don't know.

Could you send me a copy of your application source, or detailed specs, 
because I am confused right now...


-
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