From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Subject: Re: Sharing a socket connection
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:50:31 +0200
Date: 2012-07-31T13:50:31+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pq7c6tfc.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 16x1nvmt3gznc$.15s7zskookawr$.dlg@40tude.net
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>> The socket connection is bidirectional with requests sent from a
>> client followed by corresponding responses from the server. Each
>> client should only get responses to its own requests.
>
> This sort of multiplexing will be extremely slow. Basically you block
> communication until server respond.
Yes. Fortunately that is not likely to be a problem for this
application.
> My primary concern would making it full duplex multiplexed. Because
> half-duplex communication is really one of the major performance
> killers.
>
> I would consider a request [protected] object queued to a dedicated
> task doing I/O. The object would be waitable for the task that queued
> it. Which is basically how OS drivers work.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. AFAIK protected objects can't
queue on entries.
Greetings,
Jacob
--
Photos from LinuxDay2005 in Cagliari:
http://linuxday.gulch.it/2005/album/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-06 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-31 8:56 Sharing a socket connection Jacob Sparre Andersen
2012-07-31 10:18 ` Niklas Holsti
2012-07-31 10:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2012-07-31 11:50 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen [this message]
2012-07-31 12:09 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox