<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
David Beer wrote:
----- Original Message -----
<pre wrap="">Ken Nielson wrote:
<pre wrap="">----- Original Message -----
<pre wrap="">From: "Donald Neal" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email@example.com"><firstname.lastname@example.org></a>
To: "Torque Developers mailing list" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email@example.com"><firstname.lastname@example.org></a>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:05:59 PM
Subject: [torquedev] IP version-agnostic Address Representation
There are a range of cases in Torque where an IP address is
by a 32-bit object. This is something of a problem where the IP
may actually be 128 bits long.
I see two distinct cases here. In one the 32-bit object is being
a key (as with AvlNode). In this case I propose initially to take
lower-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address and keep going as now. This
simple and effiicient, but would definitely give rise to
which will confuse people in future.
So the key does in future need to change. My inclination is to use
struct created for the purpose containing two uint64_t's. But
definitely other ways of doing this.
In the other case, the address is not used as a key (as in struct
pbsnode, say). That makes it viable to use either a struct
the minimum fields necessary or a sockaddr*. I'm inclined towards
latter on the grounds that keeping down the number of struct types
use makes life simpler, But again there are clearly other ways of
Does anyone have a view on this? Does anyone have any other reason
use a package like gmp, which I don't see as needed for this
- Donald Neal
<pre wrap="">The current scheme TORQUE uses to identify trusted hosts is to use
the host name and IPv4 ip address. The 32-bit IP address is used
as a key to store trusted addresses in an AVL tree. The convenient
thing about using this scheme is that connections are verified
without the need to read any data from the stream. With the
128-bit IPv6 address the AVL tree is broken. We could change the
AVL-tree to take a 128 bit key and then pad the IPv4 addresses. (I
am just brain-storming).
Another thought is to have the server assign a random number to
each MOM and then distribute those numbers across the cluster.
This would require a change in the protocol. It also requires a
reading of the incoming stream to get the number.
Just some thoughts.
<pre wrap=""> From the (limited) discussion, I'm inclined to conclude
i) Noone has another use for gmp, so general-purpose large objects
not the answer.
ii)) Replacing the 32-bit key in AvlNode with a struct of two
is as good an idea as anything else.
So life looks to be simpler if all AvlNodes have a 128-bit key in
of a 32-bit one. This becomes more complex if the same node
is used both with an AvlNode and with a resizable_array.
Is there a simple explanation anywhere of what the resizable_array
struct is intended to be used for? This is a question about design
philosophy rather than existing code.
The resizable_array struct is being used in many places to replace linked lists. This struct actually has the capability of maintaining a fixed order, so in a way it is still a linked list that resides in an array.
The struct is used (in 4.0) to store jobs, nodes, queues, and tasks. As far as my intention for its use, I wanted to use it as an easy way for storing objects in arrays where the number of objects could change. I have tried to make it into a flexible and widely usable struct. Is there anything more specific you'd like to know about it?
Well, a general-purpose representation of a node's address can't be
smaller than the address, which may be 128 bits. As it stands
resizable_array is indexed by int. So the options look to me to be<br>
i) Replace the existing resizable_array with one indexed by an object
which can hold up to 128 bits.<br>
ii) Create a second kind of resizable_array which is indexed by a
128-bit object, leaving the existing resizable_array unchanged.<br>
iii) Maintain a structure holding a 1:1 mapping between a
general-purpose network address representation and the value used to
I don't like any of these much. I suspect option ii may result in less
complexity of thinking if not less code than the others, but I welcome
more informed opinions.<br>
- Donald Neal<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Donald Neal |"We're not going to have any riots around
| here. It doesn't matter if you're Turkish,
High Performance Computing | if you live round here we'll defend you."
The University of Waikato | - Aykut Boyraz