Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753523AbYKNNRS (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751204AbYKNNRG (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:06 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.230]:19286 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbYKNNRE (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=d/pssTmUEFNHiC9/iHOYKlbqwkIZo2ZTSy4W2iiwHuF5gDl1ucnjfhEGG0C1ADbFWo n7ZOoj7DsgFeFfz+VGa2vaiPcv68vHnRobAU6JtgsCodtzWJpyIC+VvcG/MYMqT9yqR8 8QHOW9VRZ7yshycKiwCGwOrl6sH74ok8LW770= Message-ID: <3aaafc130811140517i19e7f23aye36b98502b253c62@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:03 -0500 From: "J.R. Mauro" To: "Olaf van der Spek" Subject: Re: Unix sockets via TCP on localhost: is TCP slower? Cc: "David Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3aaafc130811131619w3ba48a86u6c6e2af35f149bf1@mail.gmail.com> <20081114.005635.131100777.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1782 Lines: 39 On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM, David Miller wrote: >>> Why would you use windowing, ACKs, flow control and encapsulation on localhost? >> >> So that you could firewall, shape, redirect, and make other >> modifications to the traffic, as well as see it in tcpdumps. That's >> the power of Linux, and yes people do this stuff and yes people do >> want these features to work over loopback. >> >>> I expected the kernel to copy data directly from user-space of the >>> sending process to a kernel buffer of the receiving process, much like >>> UNIX sockets. >> >> Then all of the above features and debugging facilities go away. > > So instead the recommendation is for all apps to support both TCP and > Unix sockets? > If you then use Unix sockets, you still lose all of those facilities > and as a bonus, your apps are more complex. Your application will not be much more complex. That's the point of having generic sockets. You can wrap whatever protocol you want underneath them. This isn't much harder than being able to read from a file or switching around to read stdin if the filename the user gives is "-" > > I'd prefer a switch that could be enabled to use such a shortcut for TCP. > Firewalls should still work mostly (on connect), redirect would still work. > I think this is unnecessary, but if you can make a patch and prove that it speeds up local connections while not slowing down everything else, have at it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/