Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:30:01 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomVZBbg=eLDQ1DCwpHvS-mA6xpxnB4Eh1NkxyACogTChA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CALDtMrJ_hYwuaM5YbgjDEmb4Cp4N6EO=mxYh-MNP7H17As41gQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPBZQG29BEJJ8BK=gn%2Bg_n5o7JSnPbsKQ-=3=6AkFOxzt%2B=wGQ@mail.gmail.com> <4053E074-EDC5-49AB-91A7-E50ABE36602E@freebsd.org> <CALDtMrKvwXW-ou8X7zsKx2ST=dKD7FqHvvnQtGo30znTWU%2BVQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPBZQG0=bcHyv7aZse=WKfjk5=6D2-%2B6EQHiAaDZqGtaodhMMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPBZQG2Ou1btHZdsYYEh9-pz%2BgrgpPG3a6VPEkj8Ygguh=Q4VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPBZQG2Pb1683xevxwLwFzK03ea6GrMAPkuxqWAU16aFwCFDbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALDtMrJ_hYwuaM5YbgjDEmb4Cp4N6EO=mxYh-MNP7H17As41gQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sure, is there a TCP version of this patch floating around? How's it doing load balancing to multiple listeners? -a On 29 November 2013 11:28, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be nice to have this feature compiled and supported in FreeBSD > kernel by default. > > Thanks > Oleg > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> And some better marketing from Dragonfly about it >> http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?29,241283,241283 :) >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> Also some discussions and improvements to it. >>> >>> http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2013-09/msg00165.ht= ml >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Well seems Dragonfly has some version of it already from commit [1]. >>>> >>>> In FreeBSD there is the framework for this with by defining PCBGROUP. >>>> Also the explanation of it at [2] and [3]. >>>> It can achieve approximately the same features of SO_RESUSEPORT of lin= ux. >>>> The only thing missing is the marketing behind it and i think and bett= er >>>> RSS support. >>>> By looking at dates the support is there before linux so all you guys >>>> looking for it can experiment with it. >>>> >>>> What i was trying to accomplish was something else from performance >>>> improvement and >>>> maybe put a sysctl behind it to make it more acceptable.. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git/commitdiff/740d1d9f7b7bf9= c9c021abb8197718d7a2d441c9 >>>> [2] >>>> http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/netinet/in_pcbgroup.c?im=3Dbigexcerpt= s#L51 >>>> [3] >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2011-June/028190.html >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>= wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tim, you are wrong. Read what is "multicast" definition, and read how >>>>> UDP and TCP sockets work in Linux 3.9+ kernels. >>>>> >>>>> Oleg . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>w= rote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hello, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two >>>>>> daemons to >>>>>> > share the same port and possibly listening ip =85 >>>>>> >>>>>> These flags are used with TCP-based servers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I=92ve used them to make software upgrades go more smoothly. >>>>>> Without them, the following often happens: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Old server stops. In the process, all of its TCP connections are >>>>>> closed. >>>>>> >>>>>> * Connections to old server remain in the TCP connection table until >>>>>> the remote end can acknowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> * New server starts. >>>>>> >>>>>> * New server tries to open port but fails because that port is =93st= ill >>>>>> in use=94 by connections in the TCP connection table. >>>>>> >>>>>> With these flags, the new server can open the port even though >>>>>> it is =93still in use=94 by existing connections. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > This is not the case today. >>>>>> > Only multicast sockets seem to have the behaviour of broadcasting >>>>>> the data >>>>>> > to all sockets sharing the same properties through these options! >>>>>> >>>>>> That is what multicast is for. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want the same data sent to all listeners, then >>>>>> that is multicast behavior and you should be using >>>>>> a multicast socket. >>>>>> >>>>>> > The patch at [1] implements/corrects the behaviour for UDP sockets= . >>>>>> >>>>>> You=92re trying to turn all UDP sockets with those options >>>>>> into multicast sockets. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want a multicast socket, you should ask for one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ermal >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ermal >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ermal >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomVZBbg=eLDQ1DCwpHvS-mA6xpxnB4Eh1NkxyACogTChA>