[nanomsg] Re: Interprocess communication on same host
- From: "Ron Gonzalez" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "zlgonzalez@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:56:39 -0700
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?
Thanks,
Ron
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Achille Roussel <achille.roussel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You have 3 transport protocols in nanomsg, inproc, ilc and tcp.
>
> - inproc: communication within a process
> - ipc: communication for processes on the same host
> - tcp: communication for processes on different hosts
>
> tcp is going to be a bit slower than ipc, it goes through the network, there
> will be a higher latency than if the messages stay on the same host but I
> don’t understand how it would be useful to benchmark these two transports
> against each other, unless you plan on using tcp for host-local
> communication, in that case it depends on how efficient the named pipe and
> tcp stack are on the OS… but really with how simple nanomsg makes it to use
> one transport or the other you should really use the right tool for your
> use-case.
>
> Or maybe I’m not understanding your question very well.
>
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Ron's Yahoo! (Redacted sender
>> "zlgonzalez@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> If I were to use nanomsg to do interprocess communication on the same host,
>> how would I do that in the most efficient manner?
>> And have we done some benchmarks on the performance difference of doing
>> interprocess communication between processes on the same host vs different
>> hosts? If it’s a different host, what is the fastest and reliable protocol
>> that can be used?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ron
>
>
Other related posts:
