Menu
▾
▴
cchatd-devel
|
From: Marcin K. <kr...@li...> - 2002-05-13 09:36:34
|
Hi It's interresing project, it's something that I thought about, but. Using just threads server is limited to about 1024 threads in one time, and new connections have to be supported by new process (fork) with communication via something like sockets (Bassicaly it's interservers communication). I thing that is clean that such server have to have possibility to support a lot of instant connections at the same time (it's a CHAT). What is you oppinion about that ? Is there implemented something like that ? PS. Currently i use java server for my chat project (http://krzak.linux.net.pl/kChat/) it's also limited but no so as pure pthreads, and I thing to move to something more efficient like C. Regards. -- Marcin Krzyzanowski www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci |
|
From: Fabio A M. <ma...@al...> - 2002-05-13 14:46:50
|
Marcin: cchatd site was kind of almost dead, all develpment was being done by me at home with no cvs updates. I decided then to build a website, organize it a little bit more, new rules and more, and also publish it at freshmeat. But this list was almost dead until today. I was going to annouce the new today so old members could know the changes (the ones that you probably have seen in cchatd website). I'll send soon a message to the list with the changes, I was waiting for the statistics *after* the freshmeat annoucements. Well, about the threads x forks. I didin't know this thread limit, and knowing this at this time make me change my mind. Maybe it would be better if before stable releases we change threads to forks. But we need a better study. If we want to be capable of accepting more than 3000 users in a single interview room (this is the audience record in a interview room here in Brazil) we will certainly use forks instead of threads. Marcin, welcome to cchatd, I'm sure that your help will be very useful. Feel free to comment your java chat solutions maybe many solutions can be easyly implementend in cchatd ;o) Let's have fun. Fabio A Mazzarino -------------------- Looking for a better .sig. Suggestions are being accepted. On Mon, 13 May 2002, Marcin Krzyzanowski wrote: !Hi ! ! !It's interresing project, it's something that I thought about, but. !Using just threads server is limited to about 1024 threads in one time, !and new connections have to be supported by new process (fork) with !communication via something like sockets (Bassicaly it's interservers !communication). I thing that is clean that such server have to have !possibility to support a lot of instant connections at the same time !(it's a CHAT). What is you oppinion about that ? Is there implemented !something like that ? ! ! !PS. Currently i use java server for my chat project !(http://krzak.linux.net.pl/kChat/) it's also limited but no so as pure !pthreads, and I thing to move to something more efficient like C. ! ! !Regards. ! !-- ! !Marcin Krzyzanowski !www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl !email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... !IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci ! !_______________________________________________________________ ! !Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply !the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: ban...@so... !_______________________________________________ !Cchatd-devel mailing list !Cch...@li... !https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cchatd-devel ! |
|
From: Marcin K. <kr...@li...> - 2002-05-13 16:02:06
|
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:45:46AM -0300, Fabio A Mazzarino wrote: > > Marcin: > > Well, about the threads x forks. I didin't know this thread limit, and > knowing this at this time make me change my mind. Maybe it would be better > if before stable releases we change threads to forks. But we need a better > study. Remember that processes after fork do not have shared memory and it have to be replaced with something else because shared data is needed in chat system... very... Fork's have also limits, the best solution (in my oppinion) make processes that handle as much threads as they can, if limit is reached then fork and contact with that second process via fast file socket. It need of course prepare interserver communication but it seems to be the best solution (imho). For chatrooms it should be transparent solution. Well currently i have a lot of work but I try to look at this code in this week and maybe comment that what is already done. It's very important to know what we want to do, and how. It have to be specified at the start. PS. sorry for my bad english. And yes I'm interessed in develop this kind of soft. -- Marcin Krzyzanowski www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci |
|
From: Fabio A M. <ma...@al...> - 2002-05-13 16:47:00
Attachments:
VERSIONS.wannabe
|
Marcin: The first cchatd concept was built in 1999 by our friend Felipe Waltrick, although he can't help us as much as he wanted to he is one of the project managers. The very first version of cchatd was implemented using forks, but we tried threads and I don't remember who have told that it should be better... whatever, let's try and try, according to the project concept and organization we shall be capable of changing modules without major changes. Feel free to send us fork patches. About next step, I have a document called VERSIONS.wannabe, it's a preview of what directions to follow and what to add in which release. I'm trying to submit this document to SF's document session, but aparently documents uploads are disabled :o( I'm sending you a copy of the file attached any way. Fabio A Mazzarino -------------------- Looking for a better .sig. Suggestions are being accepted. On Mon, 13 May 2002, Marcin Krzyzanowski wrote: !On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:45:46AM -0300, Fabio A Mazzarino wrote: !> !> Marcin: !> !> Well, about the threads x forks. I didin't know this thread limit, and !> knowing this at this time make me change my mind. Maybe it would be better !> if before stable releases we change threads to forks. But we need a better !> study. ! !Remember that processes after fork do not have shared memory and it have !to be replaced with something else because shared data is needed in chat !system... very... Fork's have also limits, the best solution (in my !oppinion) make processes that handle as much threads as they can, if !limit is reached then fork and contact with that second process via fast !file socket. It need of course prepare interserver communication but it !seems to be the best solution (imho). For chatrooms it should be !transparent solution. ! !Well currently i have a lot of work but I try to look at this code in !this week and maybe comment that what is already done. ! !It's very important to know what we want to do, and how. It have to be !specified at the start. ! !PS. sorry for my bad english. And yes I'm interessed in develop this !kind of soft. ! !-- ! !Marcin Krzyzanowski !www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl !email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... !IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci ! !_______________________________________________________________ ! !Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply !the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: ban...@so... !_______________________________________________ !Cchatd-devel mailing list !Cch...@li... !https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cchatd-devel ! |
|
From: Sky H. <_sk...@ya...> - 2002-05-15 13:39:12
|
About threads... Hi, I have told you about that thread limit, haven't I? If not, sorry. But don't worry too much. There is a way to go through this 1024 threads limit, but you must recompile libpthreads... not so difficult. :-) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com |
|
From: Marcin K. <kr...@li...> - 2002-05-15 15:01:08
|
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:38:57AM -0700, Sky High wrote: > About threads... > > Hi, I have told you about that thread limit, haven't > I? > If not, sorry. > But don't worry too much. There is a way to go through > this 1024 threads limit, but you must recompile > libpthreads... not so difficult. :-) Yes, but does it a sollution for many people ? maybe for you, me and a few people. I thik that it's not a solution. In my oppinion only solution is to mix threads and fork together. (we have to remember that fork have also limits) -- Marcin Krzyzanowski www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci |
|
From: Fabio A M. <ma...@al...> - 2002-05-15 16:06:41
|
The reality: threads HAS limits, ask to users to recompile libpthreads is unthinkable, surely the have more threaded applications and we can risk a incompatibility bug. But how long does a cchatd thread lives? For those who remembers the code (probably main.c) all threads ends after replying the http request, the keep-alive socket is kept into a list, with no thread directly associated to it. The major problem will happen when we build a interview room for high audiences. But is there any chance to recieve more then 1000 connection requests? Well, I'm sure that the most intelligent thing to do is implement a fork solution (yes, I was wrong, better accepting this now, then after the point of no return). So we need a volunteer to implement this. Does anybody feel inspired to do this? If don't I'll do it after I finish the new release of another project of mine (mini-pub v0.2 and mini-door v0.1) Let's have fun. mazza P.S.: mini-pub also need volunteers, any language is accepted, mult-plataform prefered. Pvt me if interested. -------------------- Looking for a better .sig. Suggestions are being accepted. On Wed, 15 May 2002, Marcin Krzyzanowski wrote: !On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:38:57AM -0700, Sky High wrote: !> About threads... !> !> Hi, I have told you about that thread limit, haven't !> I? !> If not, sorry. !> But don't worry too much. There is a way to go through !> this 1024 threads limit, but you must recompile !> libpthreads... not so difficult. :-) ! !Yes, but does it a sollution for many people ? maybe for you, me and a few people. I thik that it's not a solution. In my oppinion only solution is to mix threads and fork together. (we have to remember that fork have also limits) ! !-- ! !Marcin Krzyzanowski !www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl !email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... !IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci ! !_______________________________________________________________ ! !Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply !the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: ban...@so... !_______________________________________________ !Cchatd-devel mailing list !Cch...@li... !https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cchatd-devel ! |
|
From: Marcin K. <kr...@li...> - 2002-05-15 18:08:31
|
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:04:38PM -0300, Fabio A Mazzarino wrote: > Well, I'm sure that the most intelligent thing to do is implement a fork > solution (yes, I was wrong, better accepting this now, then after the > point of no return). So we need a volunteer to implement this. I'll try to do something tonight, but i'm fucking tired. But still it not clean for me what exactly do we want ? -- Marcin Krzyzanowski www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci |
|
From: Fabio A M. <ma...@al...> - 2002-05-15 19:25:23
|
Marcin: cchatd is working, it's kind of instable, but it is working. Any doubt you can ask me, I'll surely help. What do we need to do? We need first of all define what changes will be needed in order to use fork instead of pthreads. Probably all changes will be concentrated in main.c, and maybe a new file sharedmem.c. Probably what we have to do is fork instead of thread, this is the easy part. The other boring part is find where is needed and where isn't needed to use shared memory, one of the files I'm sure that we have to change is list.c, maybe client.c also. Just a note, avoid changing .h files, their padronizations is what garantees the modularity of the project. Anyway, feel free to do whatever you want, send me the changes later. mazza -------------------- Looking for a better .sig. Suggestions are being accepted. On Wed, 15 May 2002, Marcin Krzyzanowski wrote: !On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:04:38PM -0300, Fabio A Mazzarino wrote: !> Well, I'm sure that the most intelligent thing to do is implement a fork !> solution (yes, I was wrong, better accepting this now, then after the !> point of no return). So we need a volunteer to implement this. ! !I'll try to do something tonight, but i'm fucking tired. But still it not clean for me what exactly do we want ? ! !-- ! !Marcin Krzyzanowski !www : http://krzak.linux.net.pl !email : kr...@li..., kr...@tu... !IRC : [krzyzak] @#linuxnews @#zdrowo_jebnieci ! ! !_______________________________________________ !Cchatd-devel mailing list !Cch...@li... !https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cchatd-devel ! |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X