Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

Allow me to be a bit pedantic and repetitive please, because apparently my 
main point got lost.

Even when there are large numbers of LFB instances of a given class in an 
FE that need to be set, I have trouble envisioning that they will need to 
be set to the identical values.  Some of the values will be the same.  But 
some will be different.
If at least one value differs, then you need an operation directed at each 
individual LFB Instance.  If this is infeasible, then we have a basic 
problem that multicast at this level will not help.  If this is feasible, 
then multicast at this level seems a refinement that can wait until we know 
if we need it.

Yours,
Joel

PS: We are talking here about multicasting to LFB instances within an 
FE.  Although I am still doubtful about the multi-FE case, I can understand 
that rather better.

At 01:56 PM 10/20/2004 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > Given that there are distinct values in each LFB instance, there must be an
> > operation against each LFB instance.
>I don't think multicast will loose operation individuality.
> >
> > The marginal gain from having a single transaction to update the identical
> > fields, and then individual transactions for the distinct fields is very
> > small.  It does not reduce the number of IOs or the core transaction rate.
>[Weiming]At least it saves bits greatly and makes protocol practical. Remember
>the capability between CE and FE are quite limited, especially in muli-hop
>ForCES application.
> >
> > If it is desired to optimize for this case, we may want to introduce (in a
> > future version of the protocol) some kind of block checkpoint / restart
> > mechanism.  The CE would record its full state about the FE, and then ask
> > the FE for a dump suitable for restoral of the FE state.  Upon restart, the
> > CE would rebuild its state from its stored representation, and would ship
> > the dump back to the FE to enable efficient rebuilding there.  I can see
> > significant value in such a mechanism.  I do not however see a need to
> > include this in the first deliverable of the protocol.
>[Weiming]I suppose this is only for restart case, I can see many cases where
>multiple addressing can apply, such as delete, change of LFB parameter, 
>load and
>unload of LFBs, etc. And also I think the scheme above is much more 
>complex than
>multiple addressing. So, my conclusion is, with a little bit expansion, we can
>gain much, then why not we adpot it?

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol