Re: Message Queue for high performance system

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!panix5.panix.com!not-for-mail
From	jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas)
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.embedded
Subject	Re: Message Queue for high performance system
Date	1 Sep 2011 22:44:18 -0400
Organization	Jeff's House of Electronic Parts
Lines	18
Message-ID	<j3pfu2$7kr$1@panix5.panix.com> (permalink)
References	<beedda98-495a-455d-b014-53f9bba30a98@m35g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	panix5.panix.com
X-Trace	reader1.panix.com 1314931458 22880 166.84.1.5 (2 Sep 2011 02:44:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:44:18 +0000 (UTC)
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.embedded:43

Show key headers only | View raw

In article <beedda98-495a-455d-b014-53f9bba30a98@m35g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Raj  <rajendrat@gmail.com> wrote:
>We are planning to use around 100 message queues in a high performance
>system for IPC. And the messages used are of fewer bytes in sizes.
>Would like to know if there any limitations or caveats in using Linux
>IPC message queues.

Old *nix systems required static allocation of message queues:
number of queues, number of entries, etc.

Is this system using any networking?
Unless you're using message priorities and out-of-band-signalling,
sockets do the job well
and tend to have better dymanic buffering/allocation.

I never did the benchmarking but several places I worked
used shared memory & semaphores instead of message queues,
claiming it was faster.

Back to comp.os.linux.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Message Queue for high performance system Raj <rajendrat@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 12:17 -0700
  Re: Message Queue for high performance system jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2011-09-01 22:44 -0400

csiph-web