darshan123
February 18th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Hi,
I am actually writing a single SCTP server which needs to handle thousands of clients pumping msgs at various rates. I am thinking of below options to make the server multi-threaded. Please provide some inputs.
1. Make SCTP server socket a one-to-many styled (SOCK_SEQPACKET). Since all clients connect to same socket, I can remove the overhead of select/epoll and I can have multiple threads to read from the same global socket. Actually can different threads read from the same socket ? (No syncronization in sctp_recvmsg() ?)
2. Make SCTP server socket a one-to-one styled, where the accept returns individual sockets to be read for each client. If I choose to multithread the server, then creating 1000 threads for 1000 clients is not feasible. So I should have a thread pool where each thread handles a bundle of client fds. But is this not a bad design when it comes to performance? Isn't the former approach better one ?
But I read that a one-to-one server is always a better and used everywhere. But logically for me it looks like a one-to-many server best suites my requirement. Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Darshan
I am actually writing a single SCTP server which needs to handle thousands of clients pumping msgs at various rates. I am thinking of below options to make the server multi-threaded. Please provide some inputs.
1. Make SCTP server socket a one-to-many styled (SOCK_SEQPACKET). Since all clients connect to same socket, I can remove the overhead of select/epoll and I can have multiple threads to read from the same global socket. Actually can different threads read from the same socket ? (No syncronization in sctp_recvmsg() ?)
2. Make SCTP server socket a one-to-one styled, where the accept returns individual sockets to be read for each client. If I choose to multithread the server, then creating 1000 threads for 1000 clients is not feasible. So I should have a thread pool where each thread handles a bundle of client fds. But is this not a bad design when it comes to performance? Isn't the former approach better one ?
But I read that a one-to-one server is always a better and used everywhere. But logically for me it looks like a one-to-many server best suites my requirement. Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Darshan