On 1/25/12 12:58 PM, Mircea Markus wrote: > > On 25 Jan 2012, at 09:42, Bela Ban wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/25/12 9:51 AM, Dan Berindei wrote: >> >>> Slightly related, I wonder if Manik's comment is still true: >>> >>> if at all possible, try not to use JGroups' ANYCAST for now. >>> Multiple (parallel) UNICASTs are much faster.) >>> >>> Intuitively it shouldn't be true, unicasts+FutureCollator do basically >>> the same thing as anycast+GroupRequest. >> >> >> No, parallel unicasts will be faster, as an anycast to A,B,C sends the >> unicasts sequentially > Thanks, very good to know that. > > I'm a a bit confused by the jgroups terminology though :-) > My understanding of the term ANYCAST is that the message is sent to *one* of > the A,B,C. But from what I read here it is sent to A, B and C - that's what I > know as MULTICAST.
No, here's the definition: * anycast: message sent to a subset S of members N. The message is sent to all members in S as sequential unicasts. S <= N * multicast: cluster-wide message, sent to all members N of a cluster. This can be done via UDP (IP multicast) or TCP * IP multicast: the network level datagram packet with a class D address as destination * broadcast: IP packet sent to all hosts on a given range same host, subnet or higher) -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org) JBoss / Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
