Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen AT simple DOT dallas DOT tx DOT us>
X-X-Sender:	bfriesen AT scooby DOT simplesystems DOT org
To:	David E Euresti <davie AT MIT DOT EDU>
cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Duplicating Unix Domain Sockets
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.30L.0206031815540.17867-100000@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0206031855380.25087-100000@scooby.simplesystems.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, David E Euresti wrote:

> I'm not so sure that it'll make it that much slower. I mean we are talking
> of adding only a couple of bytes to every send Unix Domain sockets.  And
> Unix domain sockets never go outside the computer.  Obviously it'll hurt

Given that the implementation of Unix domain sockets normally pass
womping 108 byte path strings (see Richard W.  Stephens TCP/IP
Illustrated Volume 3 or the 'sockaddr_un' structure) with each message
a few extra bytes of overhead won't matter very much.

> if your program usually sends small packets, but you'll gain in being able
> to pass file descriptors through there.

Small packets are likely to be smaller than the address. :-)

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen AT simple DOT dallas DOT tx DOT us
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -