Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:06:36 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [RFD]: Egor's proposal for a Cygwin server process
Message-ID: <20010531140636.E23914@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010531124452 DOT G1870 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <48146951254 DOT 20010531164356 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <48146951254.20010531164356@logos-m.ru>; from deo@logos-m.ru on Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:43:56PM +0400

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:43:56PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Thursday, 31 May, 2001 Corinna Vinschen vinschen AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>
>CV> I would like to revive the discussion about a sort of server process
>CV> providing critical services to Cygwin processes.
>
>CV> The reason is that I found another good example how such a server
>CV> could be used: s-uid and s-gid applications and files.
>
>looks reasonable. not that i particularly miss suid bits, but i'd
>probably use it extensively if/when it'll be implemented.
>
>CV> So, as far as I can see, we have already three reasons to
>CV> invent that server process:
>
>CV> - Secure handles
>CV> - IPC
>CV> - s-uid, s-gid facility
>
>CV> I think we will find more later on.
>
>CV> So, how is the current "mood" related to such a server process
>CV> and how keen are people to work on that?
>
>CV> Has somebody a suggestion how to interact with that server process?
>CV> Sockets? Named pipes? Smoke signals?
>
>I'd try to range them from the different points of view:
>(first is better, last is worse)
>
>Security:
>1. Named pipes.
>2. Shared memory (?).
>3. Sockets.
>4. Smoke signals.
>
>Performance (including both latency and throughput):
>(*** this is pure speculation, some testing required ***)
>1. Named pipes. Shared memory. (not sure which is better)
>2. Sockets.
>3. Smoke signals.
>
>Cross-platform support:
>1. Smoke signals. :)
>2. Shared memory.
>3. Sockets. (don't forget, user may want to use cygwin on machine with
>no networking installed)
>4. Named pipes (nt/2000 only)
>
>a communication between client and server is restricted to local host
>only, so, i suppose, we can take "mixed" approach -- use named pipes
>on nt/2000 and shared memory on w9x.
>
>but first, i'd try to do some performance testing.

I wouldn't expect a high amount of throughput from the smoke signals but
they do fall right in line with the cygwin computer heating features.

cgf