| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
 Posted: Feb 29, 2008 - 03:20 PM
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 58
|
|
I have 3 machines with two 6.2.1 and one 6.3.2.
Under /net, and two 6.2.1 machines can see each other, while 6.3.2 can only see itself. All of them are in a switch network and can surf the web. What's the problem here?
THX! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Feb 29, 2008 - 07:46 PM
|
|
QNX Master
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 600
|
|
|
dxx2008 wrote:
I have 3 machines with two 6.2.1 and one 6.3.2.
Under /net, and two 6.2.1 machines can see each other, while 6.3.2 can only see itself. All of them are in a switch network and can surf the web. What's the problem here?
THX!
That's right. The Qnet in QNX 6.3 and above is not compatible with the Qnet from 6.2.1 and below. There is, however, a compatible qnet in 6.3 (see npm-qnet-compat.so in the docs). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Mar 01, 2008 - 03:57 AM
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 58
|
|
| Thx. i configured 6.3.2 to use npm-qnet-compat.so and all of them can see one another now. And it seems that qnx is going to discard this manager in the future release. I want to know if there is any performance difference between the two qnet methods. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Mar 01, 2008 - 04:01 AM
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 58
|
|
| Thx. i configured 6.3.2 to use npm-qnet-compat.so and all of them can see one another now. And it seems that qnx is going to discard this manager in the future release. I want to know if there is any performance difference between the two qnet methods. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Mar 02, 2008 - 12:35 AM
|
|
QNX Master
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 600
|
|
|
dxx2008 wrote:
I want to know if there is any performance difference between the two qnet methods.
Well, it depends whether you consider "working" to be a component of "performance" if so, then the new qnet performs 100% better than the old qnet  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Mar 02, 2008 - 05:39 PM
|
|
QNX Master
Joined: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 1027
|
|
| rgallen, you say that like the old version did not work at all. Was there something specific that you know of that didn't work? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3.2
Posted: Mar 04, 2008 - 05:51 PM
|
|
QNX Master
Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 600
|
|
|
maschoen wrote:
rgallen, you say that like the old version did not work at all. Was there something specific that you know of that didn't work?
The old qnet was not reliable. The new one is very reliable. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: qnet problem under the 6.2.1 and 6.3
Posted: Mar 28, 2008 - 11:16 AM
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 07, 2005
Posts: 259
|
|
I also have seen the old QNET to be problematic. In some cases it worked great, e.g. I could redirect an audio stream to a /dev/snd an another node by creating a /net link. But in other cases it just would fail, the connection would die or it would be very slow.
The new QNET is much more stable, actually I never saw it failing (except for a network driver problem, but that's not QNET's fault). And it is much faster aswell, I did some performance tests.
The question generally is what you want to achieve. For QNET though, I would recommend to use the new one in any case *g*. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
