On 27 Mar 2014, at 20:35, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > On 03/27/2014 06:04 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 27 March 2014 03:38, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: >>> No. You could continue to map the channel messages byte-by-byte >>> on SCTP messages. But you would introduce some control message >>> (also in SCTP DATA chunks) which you would send reliably and >>> put in whatever information is needed. For me this looks pretty simple... >> I think that this might be less than ideal. Unless you like buffering >> an entire BDP worth of data when the application starts applying back >> pressure. >> > BDP? Sorry, acronym cache miss. Bandwidth Delay Product. > > Besides, we've already accepted that the application can get data handed to it in 1-Gbyte chunks. That camel was larger than not doing backpressure... Yepp... I'm a bit confused about the changing requirements (or at least I can't see the consistency)... Best regards Michael > > >Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 20:51:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:55 UTC