Bi,
- both user and kernel mode.
- cannot do this. User mode implementation runs not only under Windows.
- that’s why I’m asking. For now we have performance degradation, no
boost.
So the question is still opened. How much should we expect in theory for a
good sockets -> TDI client driver port.
Thanks!
Anton Kolomyeytsev
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C29B20.1F153EE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=“iso-8859-1”
It all depends your client software is sitting in user mode or kernel mode.
If it is in user mode, by all means use winsock and use WSAXXX instead of
BSD. If it is kernel mode, then TDI is a good choice since it saves you a
lot of kernel mode/user mode boundary crossing and prcoess/thread context
switching.
Bi
-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Kolomyeytsev [mailto:xxxxx@cooldev.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 5:05 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] TDI client driver Vs. user mode sockets application
Hi,
is there any statistics how fast TDI client drivers are comparing with
user mode sockets applications? As I understand there are two different
cases. 1) socket application that is just ported to kernel with the
BSD-like sockets wrapper over TDI. 2) application ported “on the idea”
level. I mean the one that is just re-written keeping in mind all TDI
client driver programming issues.
In our case we have 5%-7% performance degradation when porting user mode
application “AS IS” (I still beleive that’s double buffering problem with
the send operation) and 0% difference with totally re-written application.
As we’ve never performed such a task before (were writing either only user
mode solutions or only kernel mode ones) I’d like the ask the gurus. What
numbers changing (both sides) should we expect when moving the network
code from user mode to kernel? Both cases (“AS IS” port and just
ideological port on the idea level).
Thank you!
Anton Kolomyeytsev
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@appstream.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
------_=_NextPart_001_01C29B20.1F153EE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=“iso-8859-1”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> 5.5.2653.12">
RE: [ntdev] TDI client driver Vs. user mode sockets =
> application
It all depends your client software is sitting in =
> user mode or kernel mode. If it is in user mode, by all means use =
> winsock and use WSAXXX instead of BSD. If it is kernel mode, then TDI =
> is a good choice since it saves you a lot of kernel mode/user mode =
> boundary crossing and prcoess/thread context switching.
Bi
-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Kolomyeytsev [> HREF=3D"mailto:xxxxx@cooldev.com">mailto:xxxxx@cooldev.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 5:05 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] TDI client driver Vs. user mode =
> sockets application
Hi,
is there any statistics how fast TDI client drivers =
> are comparing with
user mode sockets applications? As I understand =
> there are two different
cases. 1) socket application that is just ported to =
> kernel with the
BSD-like sockets wrapper over TDI. 2) application =
> ported “on the idea”
level. I mean the one that is just re-written =
> keeping in mind all TDI
client driver programming issues.
In our case we have 5%-7% performance degradation =
> when porting user mode
application “AS IS” (I still beleive =
> that’s double buffering problem with
the send operation) and 0% difference with totally =
> re-written application.
As we’ve never performed such a task before (were =
> writing either only user
mode solutions or only kernel mode ones) I’d like =
> the ask the gurus. What
numbers changing (both sides) should we expect when =
> moving the network
code from user mode to kernel? Both cases (“AS =
> IS” port and just
ideological port on the idea level).
Thank you!
Anton Kolomyeytsev
—
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: =
> xxxxx@appstream.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to =
> %%email.unsub%%
------_=_NextPart_001_01C29B20.1F153EE0–