Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61212

Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)

From vallor <vallor@cultnix.org>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.misc
Subject Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)
Date 2024-11-22 07:29 +0000
Message-ID <lqaq6cF8btnU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <vhorrb$t48o$1@dont-email.me> <vhosra$1171f$1@dont-email.me> <lqalg1F7fi9U2@mid.individual.net> <vhp8qi$12m83$2@dont-email.me> <lqaoknF8btnU2@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 22 Nov 2024 07:02:47 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in
<lqaoknF8btnU2@mid.individual.net>:

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 06:37:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhp8qi$12m83$2@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> On 22 Nov 2024 06:09:05 GMT, vallor wrote:
>> 
>>> Doesn't the named pipe connection work through the filesystem code? 
That
>>> could add overhead.
>> 
>> No. The only thing that exists in the filesystem is the “special file” 
>> entry in the directory. Opening that triggers special-case processing 
in 
>> the kernel that creates the usual pipe buffering/synchronization 
>> structures (or links up with existing structures created by some prior 
>> opening of the same special file, perhaps by a different process), not 
>> dependent on any filesystem.
>> 
>> I just tried creating a C program to do speed tests on data transfers 
>> through pipes and socket pairs between processes. I am currently 
setting 
>> the counter to 10 gigabytes, and transferring that amount of data 
(using 
>> whichever mechanism) only takes a couple of seconds on my system.
>> 
>> So the idea that pipes are somehow not suited to large data transfers 
is 
>> patently nonsense.
>> 
>>> Can't use named pipes on just any filesystem -- won't work on NFS for
>>> example, unless I'm mistaken.
>> 
>> Hard to believe NFS could stuff that up, but there you go ...
> 
> Just tested NFS, and named pipes work there.
> 
> $ time -p ( dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=$[1024*1024] ) & cat test > /
dev/null
> [1] 38859
> 1048576+0 records in
> 1048576+0 records out
> 536870912 bytes (537 MB, 512 MiB) copied, 0.918945 s, 584 MB/s
> real 0.92
> user 0.16
> sys 0.76
> 
> NFS vers 4.1.

$ nc -l -U -N /tmp/socket > /dev/null & time -p ( dd if=/dev/zero 
count=$[1024*1024*2] | nc -U -N /tmp/socket )
[1] 40284
2097152+0 records in
2097152+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 2.03617 s, 527 MB/s
real 2.03
user 0.47
sys 3.60
[1]+  Done                    nc -l -U -N /tmp/socket > /dev/null

However, the speed appears to be limited by dd in my examples -- setting a 
block size to fill the pipe/packets seems to increase throughput:

$ nc -l -U -N /tmp/socket > /dev/null & time -p ( dd if=/dev/zero 
count=$[1024*1024*4] bs=1024 | nc -U -N /tmp/socket > /dev/null )
[1] 41764
4194304+0 records in
4194304+0 records out
4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB, 4.0 GiB) copied, 4.02026 s, 1.1 GB/s
real 4.02
user 0.89
sys 7.11

$ time -p ( dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=$[1024*1024*4] bs=$[8*512]) & 
cat test > /dev/null
[1] 41282
4194304+0 records in
4194304+0 records out
17179869184 bytes (17 GB, 16 GiB) copied, 4.43357 s, 3.9 GB/s
real 4.43
user 0.54
sys 3.88

$ ulimit -p
8
(pipesize in 512-byte blocks)

(Now I'm off to find out the MTU for Unix sockets...)

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.12.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
   ""This is a job for.. AACK! WAAUGHHH!! ...someone else." - Calvin"

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

Thread

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