Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61203
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? |
| Date | 2024-11-22 06:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lqalg1F7fi9U2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <vhmn2t$hv8i$3@dont-email.me> <vhnikj$me7m$1@dont-email.me> <wwvcyio8m9p.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <vhorrb$t48o$1@dont-email.me> <vhosra$1171f$1@dont-email.me> |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhosra$1171f$1@dont-email.me>: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:55:37 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote: > >> We had to drop named pipes solely because of the performance hit >> because it is writing to a file system so it's being controlled by the >> file system, even if that file system is in memory. > > That doesn’t make any sense, if we were talking about Linux. Is this on > Windows, by any chance? Doesn't the named pipe connection work through the filesystem code? That could add overhead. Can't use named pipes on just any filesystem -- won't work on NFS for example, unless I'm mistaken. > >> As the demand grows, we are actually at the limits of performance that >> even unnamed pipes gives us. So we are starting to migrate to UNIX >> sockets which has about double to bandwidth and performance of pipes. > > Not sure how that works, given that Unix sockets are actually a more > complex mechanism than pipes. With Unix sockets, once the connection is made, it's all in-memory networking. I suspect (but don't know) that named pipes require the data to pass through the filesystem for each write. But I could be completely wrong, don't take my word for it. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.12.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G "The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle."
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-18 01:20 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-18 10:13 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-19 21:57 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-20 10:01 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-18 09:27 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-18 09:54 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-18 10:46 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-18 09:45 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 02:05 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 10:12 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 21:55 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 03:12 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 06:09 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 06:37 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 07:02 +0000
Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 07:29 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 08:38 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 09:37 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-22 10:00 -0500
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-22 17:06 -0500
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 00:42 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-03 05:23 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 06:20 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:11 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-23 03:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-23 04:28 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 04:50 +0000
Pipes v. FIFOs (was: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2024-11-26 14:21 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:04 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:44 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 06:49 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 23:44 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 05:19 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 01:27 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:41 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-23 14:39 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202411.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2024-11-23 22:32 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:11 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 22:04 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:11 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:12 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 19:42 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 02:03 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-11-24 15:48 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 16:56 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 19:14 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 20:32 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 19:36 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:22 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 01:19 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 06:49 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-04 01:10 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-04 06:45 +0000
csiph-web