From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: What's the status of TCP friends?
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:27:03 -0700
Message-ID: <20140318082703.4e2ff1a0@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
References: <20140316090744.GA14572@gmail.com>
	<1394978619.9668.14.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	<20140317031605.GA22502@gmail.com>
	<20140318012120.GG12291@order.stressinduktion.org>
	<20140318031346.GA5142@gmail.com>
	<1395115400.9114.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Li Yu <bingtian.ly@taobao.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Bruce Brutus Curtis <brutus@google.com>,
	Weiping Pan <panweiping3@gmail.com>, tmorvai@gmail.com
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:62031 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752264AbaCRP1H (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:27:07 -0400
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id rp16so7405528pbb.40
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1395115400.9114.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:03:20 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 11:13 +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> 
> > That sounds great!  But it might not satisfy our requirement.  If we use
> > AF_UNIX our program will not be deployed on two servers.  Meanwhile
> > AF_INET has been applied in our program to communicate with other
> > clients.  So DGRAM seems that it is not a good idea.  Now our program
> > needs a IPC mechansim that can commnucate between two servers and
> > provide a high performance when two processes are run on the same
> > server.  That is the reason why I am interested in TCP friends.  :)
> 
> TCP friends is another layer added into TCP stack, for what ?
> 
> Improving performance for lazy applications ?
> 
> Really, if you cared about performance, you would have added a way to
> use fast IPC if available.
> 
> TCP friends will still be slower than the available IPC mechanisms, by
> an order of magnitude.
> 
> So instead of spending time on this TCP friends dream, I think you
> should focus on existing and supported mechanisms.
> 
> I for example could add zerocopy support to AF_UNIX, if you think its
> worth it.

I find ZMQ to be a useful API for this. It allows abstracting away the
choice of transport. You can do inprocess, unix and tcp by specifying
different connection in URL like syntax.