From: grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se   
      
   On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:14:49 -0400, Roy Smith  wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Jorgen Grahn  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Assume I do logging, similar to Unix syslog logging, over a TCP   
   >> socket. The protocol is just a unidirectional stream of   
   >> CRLF-terminated lines of text. Losing some of the lines is OK (and   
   >> even desireable, when some error causes a storm of log messages) but   
   >> losing parts of a line is not.   
   >   
   > Your use case, "I need to obey record boundaries, and I don't mind if I   
   > lose some records" sounds more like UDP than TCP.  What are you trying to   
   > do with your TCP protocol that syslog over UDP doesn't already do for you?   
      
   Preserve the existing protocol. And yes, I too wonder why this   
   particular wheel got reinvented. Maybe the original designer didn't   
   know about remote syslog over UDP, or maybe he just liked reinventing   
   wheels. Maybe there was even a valid reason ;-)   
      
   As for UDP versus TCP: yes, they seem similar.  One difference I can   
   think of is that the TCP version will buffer on the client side. The   
   UDP version would (at high logging rates) happily flood the network   
   with messages which get dropped anyway at the server because the UDP   
   socket's RX buffer is full.   
      
   /Jorgen   
      
   --   
     // Jorgen Grahn    O  o   .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)