On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I don't think this version upgrade will happen right now. I guess there will be a version to switch to async msgr, then we consider to upgrade msgr version really. > waiting to happen, and not one worth risking for slightly reducing the > thread count on AsyncMessenger (especially with users coming from the > SimpleMessenger). Maybe you like aonther msgr like asyncmessengerv2? instead of the same msgr type. From my view, msgrv2 will reduce packet per message and prepare for the other new features. > -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 -- 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
