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

[Jon M. <jon...@er...>]

Hi Mark,
It is actually specified,  in chapter 2.2.6, page 21.=20
Anyway, your interpretation is correct: all sockets bound
to an overlapping sequence should have exactly one copy of the
message.  This also means that if a socket is bound to more than=20
one sequence  overlapping with the multicast address it should still
only receive one copy.  So you have to look for found entries pointing=20
to the same port, and filter out duplicates, before actually delivering=20
the message.

/Jon

Mark Haverkamp wrote:


On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 10:38, Ling, Xiaofeng wrote:

 =20

Thanks for your good suggestion.

some comments below.

   =20

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel McNeil [ mailto:da...@os... <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





Hi,





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?



How/why was the number '8' chosen for broadcast?

     =20

8 is just a suggested number in the RFC,  maybe the more feasible way is
to make=20

it configurable module parameter. Or a dynamic number adjustable with
the total nodes in the cluster.

That could be TODO itme.



   =20

Also, Mark and I notice some interesting behavior of the mulicast:



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)

     =20

In TIPCv1, what I understand is 2 processes on one node can not open the
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
cause,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

Thanks,



Daniel

















     =20