28 Jul 87 18:22:00 PST
>Would someone please post a summary of reasons why use of Streams is
>an advantage. Is this just another sales-hype buzzword? or is there
>a reason Streams is better? than sockets? than psudo-sockets? or
>select? Does the end user see any advantage? faster response? less
>CPU waste? what? Does anyone have some before & after figures on
>drivers that were converted to Streams? Please share them with us.
Lets not compare apples and oranges here.
STREAMs is an architectural feature of the System V Rel 3 UNIX kernel.
STREAMs are to the kernel what pipes are to users, allowing various
kernel components to connected in useful configurations. This is the
base used for kernel resident communications support in Sys V Rel 3.
Sockets in the Berkeley UNIX world can mean a couple of things, the
socket systems calls or the architecture of the kernel resident protocol
implementations. In my opinion, the STREAMs mechanism is a much
cleaner way to implement things like communications protocols in the
kernel (but there are some limitations). The user interface to streams
can be nearly anything you could want, but normally is via the
Transport Level Interface (TLI) which is a stream module which is intended
to present a standard transport service interface to users. Most of
the TCP/IP implementations that I have seen for STREAMs provide the
socket interface, either via new systems calls or via an interface
emulation library. As far as performance, I would suspect that a
STREAMs implementation would be at least as fast as functionally
equivalent code in the Berkeley kernel.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:48 GMT