Thanks Martin. Wouldn’t we always be able to batch messages up such that we would always get > 1MB thereby resulting in larger net throughput? This assumes a non-realtime use case of course… Thanks, Ron On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05/09/14 15:56, Ron Gonzalez (Redacted sender zlgonzalez@xxxxxxxxx > for DMARC) wrote: >> Thanks Achille. Just curious why we don't use shared memory for IPC >> so we get the fastest implementation. I guess domain sockets is a >> lot easier to deal with and doesn't require locks? > > Even with shmem you need some way to signal the other process that > there's a message to be received. Whether done via IPC socket or some > other means it always takes ‾6us. > > Thus, the shmem only helps when the cost of copying the data is > non-trivial, i.e. for large messages, say 1MB or such. > > Martin > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCcbZAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YYrQIAJe60kSjolxYgk41Zl2pid/Q > +YnqGyY/CBniGF0cN7MaPiU5xv80urPofeDLIw14ogyCDhIB3cg30NP/7+73gnSy > 06ShyQO+Tf1URx2oPEgWg9AD9rEMGnQdyt3jFS9w5uffsJDirtVm9afTvf5O8D8Y > WiF7EVcdVCFfg3QKapyw63M2i5Fjq+A197zpIppiOtqSLYAWVkyLFVfI/r8jHbj+ > DtWGYlHIQGFIoeMMRr1R21DndpBE4Hnsc3dRlw9tZsaVtDyNTFdjmBPZkx6IVsi1 > JllcT2z+nfTyxsQ5pesn8lMBv1CfBkFZ1/1U4YlUZTxOB7HqWI1kBX9qVC1/tjE= > =ntil > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >