From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 10 17:48:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C2715C38 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from justin@rhapture.apple.com) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA36848 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:35:57 -0700 Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (mailgate1.apple.com- SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:35:47 -0700 Received: from rhapture.apple.com (rhapture.apple.com [17.202.40.59]) by scv2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA31364 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:35:45 -0700 Received: by rhapture.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA00629 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199905110035.RAA00629@rhapture.apple.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sockets and SYSTEM V message queue In-Reply-To: <199905101838.LAA00711@rhapture.apple.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 17:35:40 -0700 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > From: Zhihui Zhang > Date: 1999-05-10 12:13:30 -0700 > To: "Justin C. Walker" > Subject: Re: Sockets and SYSTEM V message queue > Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG > In-reply-to: <199905101838.LAA00711@rhapture.apple.com> > Delivered-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > > > If your app is always going to run on a single system, there are > > better ways to implement it. Local-domain sockets is one; pipes is > > another (which may or may not be implemented with local-domain > > sockets). SysV message queues could be used as well. Don't know > > enough about their limitations to know whether it's a good choice, > > though. > > > > Thanks for the reply. I read some source code. In it, a server process > create a single socket to accept packets from both local client processes > and remote clients processes. This should be bad for performance. Am I > right? According to your suggestion, it may be better to create one > local-domain socket (I will figure how to use it later) for local clients > and another socket for the remote clients. This is a function of performance and the headache of having separate setup for the local and remote cases. It's the developer's call. Once the connection is set up, though, the code that uses the socket shouldn't care (much) about what kind of socket it is. Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | Men are from Earth. Apple Computer, Inc. | Women are from Earth. 2 Infinite Loop | Deal with it. Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message