--On Friday, December 13, 2002 10:07:01 -0800 Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Things are never that simple. But I was basically talking about a local policy to change the (semantics of the) API in certain cases. It's probably a bad idea and would cause all kinds of breakage, but it is interesting to think about.Andrew McGregor wrote:In a closed network, why not have SOCK_STREAM map to something faster than TCP anyway? That is, if I connect(address matching localnet), SOCK_STREAM maps to (eg) SCTP. That would be a far more dramatic performance hack! AndrewNot that simple. SCTP (if that is what Matti was referring to) is a SOCK_STREAM socket, with a protocol of IPPROTO_SCTP. I'm just getting done implementing a testsuite against the SCTP API. i.e. You have to know you want an SCTP socket at the time you open the socket. You certainly have no idea whether youre on a closed network or not, for that matter, the app may want to talk on multiple interfaces etc. (Most hosts will have one interface on a public net)..
Currently, Linux SCTP doesn't yet support TCP style i.e SOCK_STREAM sockets, we only do udp-style sockets (SOCK_SEQPACKET). We will be putting in SOCK_STREAM support next, but understand that performance is not something that has been addressed yet, and a performant SCTP is still some ways away (though I'm sure Jon and Sridhar will be working their tails off to do so ;)).
I wasn't aware of the current status. Ok, that's just where it's at.
But dont expect SCTP to be the surreptitious underlying layer carrying TCP traffic, if thats an expectation that anyone has :)
That's my particular kind of crazy idea.
Solving this problem without application involvement is a more limited scenario..
Indeed.
thanks, Nivedita
Andrew - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
