On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Ermal Luçi <e...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Well seems Dragonfly has some version of it already from commit .
The distribution algorithm was changed a little bit after initial commit to
gain more idle time (bnx(4) output has already been maxed out):
Well, I also addressed a reasonable concern from nginx folks (I am not
quite sure about Linux's position on it; Linux original implementation of
SO_REUSEPORT from Google had this drawback, which I mentioned in the commit
As about nginx, SO_REUSEPORT patch for nginx (both 1.4.x and 1.5.x) is in
dports; should be easier to be back ported to FreeBSD's ports. I failed to
convince nginx folks to merge it into mainline and I am currently onto
other stuffs, will come back to them later. If FreeBSD is going to
implement Linux's style of SO_REUSEPORT, pushing the patch to the nginx
mainline will be easier.
I also put up a brief description of SO_REUSEPORT in dfly; may be useful to
> In FreeBSD there is the framework for this with by defining PCBGROUP.
> Also the explanation of it at  and .
> It can achieve approximately the same features of SO_RESUSEPORT of linux.
> The only thing missing is the marketing behind it and i think and better
> RSS support.
> By looking at dates the support is there before linux so all you guys
> looking for it can experiment with it.
> What i was trying to accomplish was something else from performance
> improvement and
> maybe put a sysctl behind it to make it more acceptable..
>  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2011-June/028190.html
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040...@gmail.com
> > Tim, you are wrong. Read what is "multicast" definition, and read how UDP
> > and TCP sockets work in Linux 3.9+ kernels.
> > Oleg .
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Tim Kientzle <kient...@freebsd.org
> >> On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Ermal Luçi <e...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons
> >> > share the same port and possibly listening ip …
> >> These flags are used with TCP-based servers.
> >> I’ve used them to make software upgrades go more smoothly.
> >> Without them, the following often happens:
> >> * Old server stops. In the process, all of its TCP connections are
> >> closed.
> >> * Connections to old server remain in the TCP connection table until the
> >> remote end can acknowledge.
> >> * New server starts.
> >> * New server tries to open port but fails because that port is “still in
> >> use” by connections in the TCP connection table.
> >> With these flags, the new server can open the port even though
> >> it is “still in use” by existing connections.
> >> > This is not the case today.
> >> > Only multicast sockets seem to have the behaviour of broadcasting the
> >> data
> >> > to all sockets sharing the same properties through these options!
> >> That is what multicast is for.
> >> If you want the same data sent to all listeners, then
> >> that is multicast behavior and you should be using
> >> a multicast socket.
> >> > The patch at  implements/corrects the behaviour for UDP sockets.
> >> You’re trying to turn all UDP sockets with those options
> >> into multicast sockets.
> >> If you want a multicast socket, you should ask for one.
> >> Tim
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> email@example.com mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Tomorrow Will Never Die
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"