Yes, and if you kill this first thread - second thread will start to
receive connections and so on.
That's why I've used one processes-shared acceptor socket which behaves
better (load is balancing
between processes but equality of distribution is far from ideal).
Btw as per https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/ Linux 3.1 SOLVES all these
problems via SO_REUSEPORT.
On Tue Jul 23 10:18:07 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Answering my own email:
SO_REUSEPORT on FreeBSD doesn't load balance incoming connections.
Test case:
* 8 threads
* each creates a TCP socket, listening on port 1667, with SO_REUSEPORT
* only the first thread ever sees incoming requests.
I think this load distribution feature is useful to implement, but it
shouldn't be called SO_REUSEPORT.
(Silly Linux, why would you do that too..)
-adrian
On 23 July 2013 07:39, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On 23 July 2013 00:09, trafdev <traf...@mail.ru> wrote:
It's like shared acceptor FD and N processes:
[snip] looks like mine, but I use threads.
Accept conn callback is called in N processes on each connection, only one
wins,
others exit by errno == EAGAIN case. Overhead is almost zero.
Problem is that "wins" distribution is far from equal.
Right. I'm not at that stage yet, but I can totally see that happening.
Ok. Time to hit up the TCP stack people to weigh in on the recent lkml
posts about this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/542629/
With SO_REUSEPORT, we should create one listen FD per thread, and let
the OS balance how that gets distributed. Rather than one listen
socket that is shared between all processes/threads. I'll try that
locally and see if that works right. Would you mind trying it locally
and see if it improves the distribution of work?
Thanks,
-adrian
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
