Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: vallor Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Date: 22 Nov 2024 06:09:05 GMT Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net DI2i19CyQTDxCr7BTGOzxAqM6OYMJDUnsDD9ulgpyN6hJEUN/K Cancel-Lock: sha1:QAdw4ftC5ue5JG3VD/br3LQoiC0= sha256:2gpVWFOPpyp25bagKwurioCmpOds5N5YQSr4ZA0eE1U= X-Face: +McU)#<-H?9lTb(Th!zR`EpVrp<0)1p5CmPu.kOscy8LRp_\u`:tW;dxPo./(fCl CaKku`)]}.V/"6rISCIDP` User-Agent: Pan/0.161 (Hmm2; be402cc9; Linux-6.12.0) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:61203 On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote in : > 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."