From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: RFC: "local" communications Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:07:14 -0700 Message-ID: <42B0A692.6000306@us.ibm.com> References: <42B08E8A.9090609@us.ibm.com> <42B09E1E.3060709@us.ibm.com> <42B0A3CD.60505@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42B0A3CD.60505@us.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Lon Hohberger , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > Nivedita Singhvi wrote: > >> UDP or raw sockets will be somewhat better, although AF_UNIX >> would be best of all (albeit with its own constraints). > > > I was thinking of a raw interface although a UDP-like protocol would be > kind of neat (so that you could do multiplexing). It would be less work and easier on the apps to use UDP than raw, but that's just my experience (and, potentially more bugs). This could be solved by having a user space library wrap the details and call a simple low level protocol over raw sockets. >> Which datagram service, Anthony? Having a small lib like this >> would be a good idea, although the benefit would be in the details, >> and of course, depending on how many apps we need to support that >> we don't want to modify... > > > I must admit I've not put much thought into it. What are your thoughts? Me neither, much, yet, :). But, it would be nice to make things easy for the large number of apps which need intra-node communication. At the moment, they fall into the two categories of strictly intra-node versus common-over-intra_off_node. Much easier designing things for the former. thanks, Nivedita