RE: [Tipc-discussion] Re: tipc multicast patch

[Mark H. <ma...@os...>]

On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 10:38, Ling, Xiaofeng wrote:
> Thanks for your good suggestion.
> some comments below.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel McNeil [mailto:da...@os...]=20
> > Sent: 2004=E5=B9=B44=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5 23:14
> > To: Ling, Xiaofeng; Guo, Min
> > Cc: Jon Maloy; Mark Haverkamp; tipc
> > Subject: RE: [Tipc-discussion] Re: tipc multicast patch
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi,
> >=20
> >=20
> > We have not tested > 8 nodes, yet.  We could test that code
> > by changing the check (we currently have 4 nodes) to a lower=20
> > number.  Do you want us to do this?
> >=20
> > How/why was the number '8' chosen for broadcast?
>=20
> 8 is just a suggested number in the RFC,  maybe the more feasible way i=
s to make=20
> it configurable module parameter. Or a dynamic number adjustable with t=
he total nodes in the cluster.
> That could be TODO itme.
>=20
> > Also, Mark and I notice some interesting behavior of the mulicast:
> >=20
> > If 2 processes on the same node publish the same port name=20
> > sequence, a multicast only goes 1 process on the local node=20
> > (we have not tried remote yet).  Is this the intended=20
> > behavior?  Should all processes on all nodes get it?  (I do=20
> > not know if your latest check-in affects this behavior)
> In TIPCv1, what I understand is 2 processes on one node can not open th=
e same port name sequence,
> on two or more node, only one node will get the a message sent to this =
port name, that can be treated as a load
> balance. As for multicast, maybe this rule can also be applying. Of cau=
se,this also depends on application mode.
>=20

I tried this out with your updated mcast code and it seems to work OK.=20
I published the same port name sequence from two processes on a node and
was able to receive a multicast message to each process.  This seems to
me like the right thing to do.

Jon,
I looked at your RFC and didn't see this kind of behavior specified one
way or the other.  What do you think is the right thing to do?

Thanks,
Mark.


>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Thanks,
> >=20
> > Daniel
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
--=20
Mark Haverkamp <ma...@os...>