Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets

Liste des GroupesRevenir à col misc 
Sujet : Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets
De : nntp (at) *nospam* fulltermprivacy.com (Phillip Frabott)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.misc
Date : 22. Nov 2024, 16:00:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vhq6ag$176f0$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/22/2024 03:38, vallor wrote:
On 22 Nov 2024 07:29:16 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in
<lqaq6cF8btnU3@mid.individual.net>:
 
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 )
 Realized the bottleneck would be the pipe between dd and nc, so wrote
a program to connect to /tmp/socket and spew data at it -- it sends
46950 212992-byte buffers (9999974400 bytes) in 2.41 seconds.
(4149366971 bytes/second, or 4.1GB/s).
 (The default "MTU" for a Linux Unix socket connection
is 212992 bytes.  Default pipe size is 8*512 bytes.)
 
Yeah, this has been the experience of our testing as well. We can also bump the MTU up a bit to get sockets to do better and we've also modified some of the socket code to our environment so it's able to do around 12GB/s. We think we can tune it further to get about 15GB/s from sockets. At the moment we have to do 4.6GB per 0.5sec to keep up, and 7GB per 0.5sec to stay ahead. We've done everything we can to squeeze out as much performance from pipes as we could but there just isn't much we can do anymore. But yeah, sockets are way more capable of large data intake vs pipes, and this shows as well in a lot of research that's been done. We've been testing sockets for about the last year and the results have shown we are keeping up better then we are with pipes right now.
And for tribute to pipes, we've been using pipes in this project for the last 30 years. That's a pretty great track record for something to have been useful for such a long time and not be replaced with something else until now. Sadly sockets will likely bottom out in the next 10-15 years and we'll have to switch to something else. But for now, it's working.
--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Nov 24 * Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?76186282@ud0s4.net
18 Nov 24 +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3D
20 Nov 24 i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2186282@ud0s4.net
20 Nov 24 i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1D
18 Nov 24 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Pancho
18 Nov 24 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell
18 Nov 24 +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?48Rich
18 Nov 24 i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?47Phillip Frabott
20 Nov 24 i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?46Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Nov 24 i  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?45Phillip Frabott
21 Nov 24 i   `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?44Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Nov 24 i    `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?43Phillip Frabott
21 Nov 24 i     +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?20Richard Kettlewell
22 Nov 24 i     i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?19Phillip Frabott
22 Nov 24 i     i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?16vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?9vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i `* Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)8vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i  `* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets7vallor
22 Nov 24 i     i i i   +- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i i   `* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets5Phillip Frabott
22 Nov 24 i     i i i    +* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i     i i i    i`* Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets2Phillip Frabott
23 Nov 24 i     i i i    i `- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Dec 24 i     i i i    `- Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i     i i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Rich
23 Nov 24 i     i i  +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3vallor
23 Nov 24 i     i i  i+- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
23 Nov 24 i     i i  i`- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
26 Nov 24 i     i i  `- Pipes v. FIFOs (was: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?)1Geoff Clare
22 Nov 24 i     i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell
21 Nov 24 i     `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?22Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Nov 24 i      `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?21186282@ud0s4.net
22 Nov 24 i       `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i        `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?19186282@ud0s4.net
23 Nov 24 i         `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?18Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i          `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17186282@ud0s4.net
23 Nov 24 i           +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?6Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Nov 24 i           i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Carlos E.R.
23 Nov 24 i           i +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Fritz Wuehler
24 Nov 24 i           i i`- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
24 Nov 24 i           i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i           i  `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
23 Nov 24 i           `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?10The Natural Philosopher
23 Nov 24 i            `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?9Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i             `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?8186282@ud0s4.net
24 Nov 24 i              +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Nov 24 i              `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?6Rich
24 Nov 24 i               `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Lew Pitcher
24 Nov 24 i                +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
24 Nov 24 i                `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Richard Kettlewell
24 Nov 24 i                 +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Carlos E.R.
24 Nov 24 i                 `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
20 Nov 24 `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?22Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Dec 24  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?21186282@ud0s4.net
3 Dec 24   +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Dec 24   i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2186282@ud0s4.net
4 Dec 24   i `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
14 Dec 24   `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?17Pancho
14 Dec 24    `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?16root
14 Dec 24     `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?15The Natural Philosopher
17 Dec14:34      `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?14Geoff Clare
18 Dec02:23       `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
18 Dec05:25        `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?12186282@ud0s4.net
18 Dec06:01         `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?11Rich
18 Dec06:12          +* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Robert Riches
18 Dec15:03          i`* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?4Rich
19 Dec05:27          i `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3Robert Riches
19 Dec15:07          i  `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?2Rich
19 Dec16:02          i   `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1D
18 Dec09:27          `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?5Richard Kettlewell
18 Dec15:02           `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?4Rich
18 Dec17:11            `* Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?3John Ames
18 Dec17:51             +- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Rich
18 Dec19:32             `- Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?1Richard Kettlewell

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal