Experimental Physics and
| |||||||||||||||||
|
As far as I recall, in some implementations of UDP/IP, only one of the processes that share a UDP port will get a UDP unicast. This will break the Channel Access name resolution mechanism, which relies on CA servers being able to receive the resolution requests. In most (maybe all newer?) cases all the port-sharing processes will get the message, which works. That's what you see on your Linux box (also true for Windows, I heard). If I remember correctly, there was a problem with CA beacons coming from those multiple soft IOCs: Clients were interpreting the regular beacons from multiple IOCs residing on the same IP as irregular beacons from one server and continuously retransmitting all their unresolved channels. As far as I know Jeff has fixed this by adding IP and port info to the beacon packets, so that the clients can distinguish these cases. I still prefer having different IP addresses for different IOCs on the same host, as you can find out a lot easier which soft IOC a certain channel (that an external CA client is connected to) resides on. Useful when things are hanging and you want to know which of the soft IOCs has to be rebooted. I am not expert enough to tell what positive or negative side effects multiple logical interfaces (with their separate stacks and system resources) have - compared to running all traffic over one interface. Somehow keeping things separate feels more adequate to me, but that feeling may be wrong just as well. Cheers, Ralph ps. Note that the addition of logical interfaces does not require any additional hardware in your Linux box, it's just creating new network interfaces that share the same ethernet card. Pure configuration. Luedeke Andreas wrote: Hi,
| ||||||||||||||||
ANJ, 10 Nov 2011 |
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing · |