|
From: | Joshua Stratton |
Subject: | Re: Hurdish TCP stack (was: updated proposal) |
Date: | Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:07:23 -0600 |
It's clearly a mistake to map the directory tree to the protocols stack.
> I think this approach would fit nicely into the Hurd's translator
> architecture. However, I'm not sure if I like the directory structure they
> use. I would think the network interface should be shown like
>
> /net/eth0/tcp/2
>
> It might be worthwhile--but possible bad style?--to duplicate both
> hierachies so on may browse the connections by device or generally.
>
> Any preferences/comments on this?
The TCP implementation is a global layer, it handles network interfaces
internally and must not be bound to any interface (ask yourself how to
implement INADDR_ANY, or IPv4 capable IPv6 sockets). In addition,
separating the network and transport layers implies several problems.
The most obvious one concerns performance. The Mach IPC subsystem
provides nice virtual copy support, but this facility creates an
important overhead that severely impacts high speed connections.
Carefully shared memory between the servers may help though.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |