You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2011/12/30 21:55:36 UTC
UDP support in core and APIs ?
Hi,
what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the core
and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP). I
suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
(afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs / classes?
Thoughts?
-- leif
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <le...@ogre.com>.
On 12/30/11 8:28 PM, ming.zym@gmail.com wrote:
> In all, I can not agree on kill most of the stuff from the core, if it
> will break the stream, or we have to rebuild it later. If it does no
> harm on ohters, and no one will take care of it for, why not just leave
> it there?
The "problem" is that it's riddled with features and code only related to
e.g. bandwidth management for the streaming protocols we do not support. But
yes, if we need it, obviously it has to stay.
-- Leif
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by "ming.zym@gmail.com" <mi...@gmail.com>.
besides DNS, UDP is|maybe needed in the following system:
cluster:
I am not sure if we can handle >2Gbps inter cluster tcp traffic,
maybe we need to think of the UDP implements of the intercluster
communication.
ICP:
it is udp based.
prefetch:
/* This lock fails quite often. This can be expected because,
multiple threads try to append their buffer all the the same
time to the same connection. Other thread holds it for a long
time when it is doing network IO 'n stuff. This is one more
reason why URL messages should be sent by UDP. We will avoid
appending small messages here and those URL message reach the
child much faster */
stream media:
stream is one of our most valuable design, you can not find out any
other system that can handle stream media well and flex. from my
side, we'll take very serious look if we can rebuild the stream
system in y2012.
In all, I can not agree on kill most of the stuff from the core, if it
will break the stream, or we have to rebuild it later. If it does no
harm on ohters, and no one will take care of it for, why not just leave
it there?
在 2011-12-30五的 13:55 -0700，Leif Hedstrom写道：
> Hi,
>
> what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the core
> and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP). I
> suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
> protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
> (afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs / classes?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- leif
>
--
zym, Zhao Yongming.
aka: yonghao @ taobao.com
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
On 04/01/2012 15:31, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 31/12/2011 02:40, Igor Galić wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the
>>>> core
>>>> and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP).
>>>> I
>>>> suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
>>>> protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
>>>> (afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs /
>>>> classes?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>> Streaming video over HTTP is occasionally (when possible) done over
>> UDP
> Any more info on this?, - or do we have to STW ourselves (:
>
>
Not offhand :(
I haven't done video streaming (or and UDP for that matter) in a while,
but remember when hacking with Apache Webserver UDP support (for
mod_domain aka mod_dns) I saw some requests for people asking for UDP
HTTP support at one point or another, and IIRC windows media server
allowed IIS to talk UDP for this (but I might be waaay off there)
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
> On 31/12/2011 02:40, Igor Galić wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the
> >> core
> >> and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP).
> >> I
> >> suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
> >> protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
> >> (afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs /
> >> classes?
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> Streaming video over HTTP is occasionally (when possible) done over
> UDP
Any more info on this?, - or do we have to STW ourselves (:
> Issac
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
On 31/12/2011 02:40, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi,
>>
>> what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the
>> core
>> and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP). I
>> suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
>> protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
>> (afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs /
>> classes?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
Streaming video over HTTP is occasionally (when possible) done over UDP
Issac
Re: UDP support in core and APIs ?
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
>
> what do you guys think about eliminating the UDPNet stuff from the
> core
> and APIs (there are some old, "private" INK APIs related to UDP). I
> suspect most (all?) of this is old code, related to the streaming
> protocols that the core used to support. The only UDP code we have
> (afaik) is DNS related, and I don't think it uses these APIs /
> classes?
>
> Thoughts?
Is there any possible future use for UDP as protocol or rather for
protocols in ATS - and how would we fare with the current state of
the APIs? Can they be improved - or would they need a rewrite to
be in any usable state anyway?
How does ripping out UDP correlate with this project:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/HostDBandDNS
> -- leif
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE