Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/05/31/14:06:43
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
- Raw text -