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

On 11/21/2024 13:38, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

 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.
 

 From a performance perspective they are. At least from the work I've done. We had to drop named pipes solely because of the performance hit because it is writing to a file system so it's being controlled by the file system, even if that file system is in memory. Anonymous (unnamed) pipes seem to be different. Maybe it's the differences between how FIFO works with named pipes over the regular pipes. I don't know, but we've never been able to get named pipes to be 1:1 performance with unnamed pipes.
My best guess is that since unnamed pipes are not written to a file system, it has a small performance advantage over named pipes. I deal with large data streams that have very very small TTL's on them (in come cases only a couple ms) so if a pipe takes too long it will get bogged down and won't keep up. So it might be specific to the uses we have at work. In probably 90% of everyone else's uses it's probably not noticeable.
As the demand grows, we are actually at the limits of performance that even unnamed pipes gives us. So we are starting to migrate to UNIX sockets which has about double to bandwidth and performance of pipes.
--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------