infiniband: ?
tridge at samba.org
tridge at samba.org
Mon Nov 20 10:42:07 GMT 2006
Peter,
> That was my 1st proposal (not published), and then after Alexander B. exposed
> me the need of _real_ a socket-like interface (2nd)
If we can get a socket like interface at no cost, then great, but I
don't think its essential.
What I think the transports will need to provide is:
- a way to return a list of what nodes are on the system
- a way to send a message to a specified node
- hooks to allow events (incoming messages etc) to hook into our
events layer. For IB that will probably be channel->fd
- a way for the event hooks to call a function to say that a message
has arrived, plus who it is from, size etc
None of this is particularly socket like :)
> It would have a need of a dedicated process for ib-specific event handling,
> communicating to other user processes via e.g. unix domain sockets (or
> better).
I envisage we will have a single dispatched daemon per node. This will
handle all the CTDB protocol traffic, plus talk to all the smbd
processes across a unix domain socket.
> Q1: how do you imagine [TCP/IP-] connection buildup? AFAIK the common design
> is to dedicate 1 (forked) process for each connection (as samba works now).
> I'd need a scenario for adding a node runtime as well.
We will have a single process for all the CTDB traffic on a
node. There will be many smbd processes who talk to that one CTDB
process.
> That's why I've been curious where (and how) this layer is applied
> (dispatcher? smbd?).
The code in my little bzr tree currently just has one process - it
doesn't have the equivalent of the smbd process. That is to keep the
initial development simple, it isn't how things will run eventually :)
Cheers, Tridge
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list