David S. Miller wrote:
From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>I did provide numbers for UDP latency, which is more critical for my own application since most messages fit within a single packet. I haven't done UDP bandwidth testing--I need to check how lmbench did it for the unix socket and do the same for UDP. Local TCP was far slower than unix sockets though.
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:07:45 -0500
Suppose I have a process that waits on UDP packets, the unified local IPC that we're discussing, other unix sockets, and stdin. It's awfully nice if the local IPC can be handled using the same select/poll mechanism as all the other messaging.
So use UDP, you still haven't backed up your performance
claims. Experiment, set the SO_NO_CHECK socket option to
"1" and see if that makes a difference performance wise
for local clients.
Yes, I realize that the receiver still has to do a copy. With large messages this could be an issue. With small messages, I had assumed that the cost of a recv() wouldn't be that much worse than the cost of the sender doing a kill() to alert the receiver that a message is waiting. Maybe I was wrong.But if performance is "so important", then you shouldn't really be shying away from the shared memory suggestion and nothing is going to top that (it eliminates all the copies, using flat out AF_UNIX over UDP only truly eliminates some header processing, nothing more, the copies are still there with AF_UNIX).
It might be interesting to try a combination of sysV msg queue and signals to see how it stacks up. Project for tonight.
Chris
--
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com
-
: 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
