[Private email being brought back on-list.]
Alain Knaff wrote:
> On Saturday 18 October 2003 00:39, you wrote:
>>Alain Knaff wrote:
>>>On Friday 17 October 2003 02:37, Christopher Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> ssh udp-receiver -p 9002 -f bar ... >stdout.log 2>stderr.log
>>
>>I didn't understand this response at all,
>
> This is a Unix command that allows you to "remotely" connect from the
I understand the command just fine. I didn't understand the *reponse*.
>>I am correct in stating that udpcast
>>does not guarantee delivery by requesting resends for missed packets
>>through the return communication channel, yes?
>
> No.
This is completely unclear, fwiw.
>> Your comment made about
>>not binding to the multicast address would indicate further problems
>>with guaranteed delivery.
>
> Huh? Do you mean the --mcast-addr and --mcast-all-addr flags, which
> are necessary for operation in a WAN? Yes, these settings are indeed
> somewhat fiddly, but they do not force you to use the --async mode.
Actually, I was referring to this:
/**
* Set socket to listen on given multicast address Not 100% clean, it
* would be preferable to make a new socket, and not only subscribe it
* to the multicast address but also _bind_ to it. Indeed, subscribing
* alone is not enough, as we may get traffic destined to multicast
* address subscribed to by other apps on the machine. However, for
* the moment, we skip this concern, as udpcast's main usage is
* software installation, and in that case it runs on an otherwise
* quiet system.
*/
int mcastListen(int sock, char *ifname, struct sockaddr *addr) {
My systems will not be "quiet", nor are they used for "software
installation", and picking up random pcakets and inserting them into the
files I am distributing would be a very bad thing. This furthered my
belief that udpcast didn't do any checking for things like out of order
or retransmits.
> You can make a small script that starts the various udp-receivers (via
> ssh) and then the udp-sender, and then put that script into a cron
> job.
Well, knowing this now, I see that two days' worth of my work was for
nothing ... unless I can find an alternate use for it like server crash
recovery. But even then, unicast is probably best in that case. Hmm.
> The --nokbd and --autostart flags are useful for such operation.
I chose '--full-duplex --nokbd --min-clients $ready --max-bitrate 1m'.
The max bitrate was so I can roughly simulate the frame. How does
udpcast maintain integrity when --full-duplex is chosen, as the
documentation states that it doesn't wait for an acknowledgement before
continuing transmission?
> The only difference is a difference in network distance: most current
> users use udpcast on a LAN (traffic needs to cross no routers),
> whereas you seem to plan a usage on a WAN. That is fine, the only
> difference is that in such case some tweaking with the mcast-addr and
> --mcast-all-addr settings might be needed to help the multicast
> traffic traverse the routers.
I noted that in the documentation. It will be a while before these
machines are shipped out. I'm still in the evaluation phase.
>>I'm having (what I hope are) some network problems; the code runs
[...which appear to be dead ports on a switch...]
>>beautifully on my local machine. However, I'm still looking for
>>something a bit more off-the-shelf, if anyone has any pointers...
udpcast may be the answer. I'm going to set my client/server code aside
for the time being. If I find I need it, I'll enhance it a tad to make
it more bittorrent-like, since it's so close.
Chris