On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Haomai Wang wrote: >> This way is ok to me. So another change is double messenger >> instances(to v1 and v2) or let each messenger support multi binding >> addresses(this may need to refactor messenger interface). > > Yeah. I'm guessing we'll want to have an entity_addrvec_t with address > types mapped to different Messenger implementations (e.g., xio), so we'll > wan to allow multiple instance eventually. But we'll also just want to > allow multiple binding (v1 + v2, or ipv4 + ipv6). :/ Hmm, is that really necessary? It seems a fair bit more complicated and I'm not sure there's much payoff given the connection types. Long-term the only doubled connection I can see being needed is the client one; OSD cluster messengers will only be required to bind twice during the initial upgrade period. Put another way, what's the advantage of supporting two different protocols within one messenger? That just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, and not one worth risking for slightly reducing the thread count on AsyncMessenger (especially with users coming from the SimpleMessenger). -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
