Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 15:03:45 -0600 From: Lyndon.Nerenberg@MessagingDirect.COM To: cyouse@cybersites.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sockets and SYSTEM V message queue Message-ID: <199905102103.PAA13125@rembrandt.esys.ca> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905101502230.58619-100000@ns1.cybersites.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 May, Chuck Youse wrote: > As the other respondent mentioned (my apologies to that other respondent, > I've already deleted your reply and hence don't have your name handy), > using UNIX domain sockets makes migration to separate machines more > difficult. It might be better to bind an AF_INET socket to 127.0.0.1 (to > prevent other machines from accessing the service, if that's your concern) > .. the loopback interface is pretty quick about turning packets around, > so there's little (if any) performance hit. However an AF_INET loopback connection still means a trip through the IP stack in the kernel, whereas AF_LOCAL basically does simple buffer copies between the processes. Usually you can pick up quite a bit of additional throughput on local connections by using AF_LOCAL. It's worth your while to benchmark the difference between AF_INET/127.0.0.1 and AF_LOCAL *on the OS the application will run on* to see how much of a speed-up AF_LOCAL will give you. (We've seen quite a bit of variance in the amount speed up across different flavours of UNIXen.) --lyndon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905102103.PAA13125>