brian at tangent.org
Wed Feb 13 14:48:52 UTC 2008
On Feb 13, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> Should we assume that every interface that binds for the text
> protocol should also bind for the binary protocol? That seems
> pretty straightforward, and will probably be consistent with the UDP
I am up for doing that! That is how I would prefer it be done. We
should add a command (maybe stat?) that can tell us what the binary
> I've not been paying much attention to this thread, honestly. Is
> there a short summary of the goal of explicit multiple interface
> binding? It doesn't seem like it does much over IN_ADDR_ANY in the
> general case but become a multiplier for file descriptors (once
> there's a binary UDP implementation, it'd be n interfaces * m layer
> 3 protocols * 4).
With ipv6 the interface is more natural for binding to multiple
For a binary UDP, we should default it on and to the same port as the
binary TCP (in my opinion).
> I'm not so much questioning its value as I am curious. Right now,
> it just looks like a lot of work for me. :)
Well, the one thing I have been pinged about is that this will allow
someone to push more data if they have been maxing out a single card's
interface. Mainly though, it just makes the interface complete.
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
http://exploitseattle.com/ <-- Fun
You can't grep a dead tree.
More information about the memcached