[nanomsg] Re: Interprocess communication on same host
- From: "Ron's Yahoo!" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "zlgonzalez@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:18:22 -0700
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-----
>
Other related posts:
