XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Stunnel - Future plans to use something else?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    19 Posts 5 Posters 1.3k Views 5 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • olivierlambertO Offline
      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
      last edited by olivierlambert

      IDK and that's why I invoked @psafont 😛

      nikadeN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • nikadeN Offline
        nikade Top contributor @olivierlambert
        last edited by

        @olivierlambert said in Stunnel - Future plans to use something else?:

        IDK and that's why I invoked @psafont 😛

        Alright!
        This might actually be a big deal if its single threaded and you guys are able to bundle one that is multithreaded in the base XCP-NG installation.
        Crossing my fingers over here!

        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • J Offline
          JeffBerntsen Top contributor @nikade
          last edited by

          I'm not sure about 8.3 but I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed since 8.2.1.

          Using ldd on 8.2.1's stunnel binary shows dependencies on libpthread and libwrap so I'm guessing it was compiled with thread and wrapper support.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J Offline
            john.c
            last edited by john.c

            @JeffBerntsen @psafont Additionally it may be worth making sure it's at least version 5.70 though much better and preferred to be version 5.72. As this new version has several major bug and vulnerabilities fixed.

            https://www.stunnel.org/NEWS.html

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierlambertO Offline
              olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
              last edited by

              So it doesn't seem to be an issue: XAPI will spawn multiple stunnel process if needed. XAPI itself is not multithreaded, so the bottleneck might not be stunnel after all.

              J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J Offline
                john.c @olivierlambert
                last edited by john.c

                @olivierlambert said in Stunnel - Future plans to use something else?:

                So it doesn't seem to be an issue: XAPI will spawn multiple stunnel process if needed. XAPI itself is not multithreaded, so the bottleneck might not be stunnel after all.

                @psafont Maybe worth multithreading the XAPI to help its performance, so that when going through stunnel it doesn't act as a bottleneck.

                psafontP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • olivierlambertO Offline
                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                  last edited by

                  I think it's a pretty complex issue, but I'm not a XAPI dev, so I can't answer 🙂

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • psafontP Offline
                    psafont @john.c
                    last edited by

                    @john-c This involves waiting on a stable OCaml 5 version being release, then porting the whole codebase to use the new multithreading APIs, this is a very complex matter, and it will take a long time until it's realised

                    nikadeN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • olivierlambertO Offline
                      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                      last edited by

                      And there's maybe easier bottleneck to fix before 🙂

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • nikadeN Offline
                        nikade Top contributor @psafont
                        last edited by

                        @psafont said in Stunnel - Future plans to use something else?:

                        @john-c This involves waiting on a stable OCaml 5 version being release, then porting the whole codebase to use the new multithreading APIs, this is a very complex matter, and it will take a long time until it's realised

                        Is there any plans on that or is it already on some kind of roadmap?

                        psafontP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • psafontP Offline
                          psafont @nikade
                          last edited by

                          @nikade We've already fixed some issues to start using ocaml 5 regarding the C interfaces. Handling threading in ocaml 5 is still an open problem that the ecosystem has not yet solved (there are many libraries competing now). We still need to create a credible strategy to port xapi to the new model, and don't have any timelines yet

                          nikadeN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • nikadeN Offline
                            nikade Top contributor @psafont
                            last edited by

                            @psafont said in Stunnel - Future plans to use something else?:

                            @nikade We've already fixed some issues to start using ocaml 5 regarding the C interfaces. Handling threading in ocaml 5 is still an open problem that the ecosystem has not yet solved (there are many libraries competing now). We still need to create a credible strategy to port xapi to the new model, and don't have any timelines yet

                            Yea porting it is probably not a bad idea, but I guess that involves the biggest tasks as well 🙂
                            All tho if you port it there might be opportunities to re-do a lot of things that you have been looking to fix for ages.

                            Crossing my fingers that this is something that you get time to do in the near future, there is a real chance here to take a big part of the esxi market as a lot of ppl are migrating.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post