Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?

Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:

On 11/21/2024 02:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 02:05:46 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 19:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:45:07 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:

I think the point that is being made by calling pipes a "temp files"
is that they are not persistent.

>
Named pipes can indeed be persistent.

>
Sure, but then your just creating a file with all the limitations that
come from that.

This remark makes me wonder if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick
about what a named pipe is. They are really not the same as regular
files, temporary or otherwise.

Not at all. It still has the same synchronization behaviour.
 

IPC only benefits you when you use unnamed or traditional pipes
(performance and resources).

Certainly not.

>
I guess it just depends on what you are doing. And in perspective,
most pipes are generally used for small amounts of data, the smaller
then data the less benefits you see between unnamed vs named pipes. I
mean 100-bytes has zero performance differences between named and
unnamed while a 10MB pipe will always show that unnamed pipes are
faster then named pipes.

Apart from the details of how you get file descriptors to them, named
and anonymous pipes are identical.

Empirically (and unsurprisingly) there’s no performance difference in
Linux.

So it's just depends on what you are doing and the data you have. But
as far as I know named pipes still go away when you turn the machine
off unless you are redirecting /tmp to hard storage.

The _contents_ of any kind of pipe go away when the last file descriptor
to them is closed (including rebooting or turning of the machine).

The _name_ of a named pipe goes away when it is unlinked or the
filesystem containing it is destroyed (which would include turning off
the machine, if the name is in a tmpfs).

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/