Re: msgr2 protocol

[Haomai Wang <haomai@xsky.com>]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Haomai Wang wrote:
>>> This way is ok to me. So another change is double messenger
>>> instances(to v1 and v2) or let each messenger support multi binding
>>> addresses(this may need to refactor messenger interface).
>>
>> Yeah.  I'm guessing we'll want to have an entity_addrvec_t with address
>> types mapped to different Messenger implementations (e.g., xio), so we'll
>> wan to allow multiple instance eventually.  But we'll also just want to
>> allow multiple binding (v1 + v2, or ipv4 + ipv6).  :/
>
> Hmm, is that really necessary? It seems a fair bit more complicated
> and I'm not sure there's much payoff given the connection types.
> Long-term the only doubled connection I can see being needed is the
> client one; OSD cluster messengers will only be required to bind twice
> during the initial upgrade period.
>
> Put another way, what's the advantage of supporting two different
> protocols within one messenger? That just sounds like a disaster

I don't think this version upgrade will happen right now. I guess
there will be a version to switch to async msgr, then we consider to
upgrade msgr version really.

> waiting to happen, and not one worth risking for slightly reducing the
> thread count on AsyncMessenger (especially with users coming from the
> SimpleMessenger).

Maybe you like aonther msgr like asyncmessengerv2? instead of the same
msgr type. From my view, msgrv2 will reduce packet per message and
prepare for the other new features.

> -Greg
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html