Huafeng Lu wrote:
> ? 2008?11?12? 14:49, Erik Nordmark ??: >> James Carlson wrote: >> >>> The situation for UDP is a bit different. Since there is no real >>> connection in UDP and the same socket can be used to send to >>> multiple destinations, the major task is to register the five-tuple >>> at the cluster level. Such registration is performed at connect(), >>> sendto() and sendmsg(), which call the cl_inet_connect() hook at >>> proper time. For performance reasons, sendto()/sendmsg() calls the >>> hook only when the destination is new. To facilitate this, two new >>> fields are added to the udp_t struct to store the most recent >>> destination address and port: in6_addr_t udp_cl_v6lastdst; in_port_t >>> udp_cl_lastdstport; In a sendto() or sendmsg(), the >>> cl_inet_connect() hook is called only when the destination is >>> different from most recent one. > > [ cc Honsing from the Cluster team.] > > > Hi Erik, > > Thanks for reviewing it. > >> Since UDP currently does not call cl_inet_connect, I assume the above >> paragraph refers to the proposed new behavior. > > Yes, for the new behavior. >> >> Does the reference to sendmsg/sendto imply that this will be >> implemented in sockfs? Or will it be implemented in TCP? > > When sendmsg/sendto are called from an application, the registrations > are finally implemented in udp_wput(). You can refer to the webrev at > http://greatwall.prc/~hl157128/tmp.cluster/webrev.stonedog.1111/ >> >> I don't understand why a new udp_cl_v6lastdst is needed since udp >> already has a udp_v6lastdst field. > > The udp_v6lastdst field is used for Trusted Extension. To be safe, I > don't want to reuse it, so the two new fields are introduced. >> >> >> Is the intent that Cluster be useful with exclusive-IP zones in the >> future? >> If so it might make sense to take this opportunity to introduce an >> instance identifier to the function signatures. Currently the load balancing feature is limited to shared-IP zones. But we do believe that at some future point we would like to expand it to include exclusive-IP zones. So if it is relatively straight-forward to include the instance ID, we should pursue it. Honsing > > The requirement for this project (RFE 6717519) comes from a customer > (Siemens). Using Cluster with exclusive zones is not in the requirement. > I don't know if this will happen in the future. > > Honsing is from the Cluster team, so he may provide such information. > > Thanks. > -- > Huafeng > > >> >> Erik >> >
