UDP support in the binary protocol
aaron at serendipity.cx
Mon Dec 17 19:34:23 UTC 2007
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007, Dustin Sallings <dustin at spy.net> said:
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 19:26, Aaron Stone wrote:
>> Do we want to add 32 bits to the binary protocol for UDP sequencing?
>> this been discussed before? If so, please point me in the direction of
>> such a thread in the mailing list archives!
> No, UDP support seems to be the minimal wrapping around the
> underlying protocol to provide sequencing. Not sure if I can point
> you to archives, but the intention should be somewhat clear.
> The purpose of a UDP based protocol would be to provide a
> connectionless form of the TCP based protocol with less client and
> server overhead.
> When you think about it that way, you're just implementing some of
> the parts that the transport doesn't give you, so it makes sense to
> not combine them in such a way that provides redundancy with your
> transport. If you're optimistic, you have less overhead in general.
Well, ok, but the only thing that the UDP header provides that the binary
protocol does not now provide directly is sequence numbers for
reassembling a large SET / GET.
Here's an idea: we have a different magic byte that indicates that the
common header is four bytes longer, and we use that magic byte for UDP
More information about the memcached