From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan 24 14:51:41 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94DA158CA
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:51:36 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 77F651CD4; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:10:27 +0800 (WST)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Performance issue with rfork() and single socketpairs versus multiple socketpairs. 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com> 
   of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:11:03 PST." <01b601bf6696$60701930$1e80000a@avantgo.com> 
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:10:27 +0800
From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Message-Id: <20000124221027.77F651CD4@overcee.netplex.com.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

"Scott Hess" wrote:

> I've found an odd performance issue that I cannot explain.  I'm using
> socketpairs to communicate with multiple rfork(RFPROC) processes.

Use 'pipe(2)' rahter than 'socketpair(2)' as both are bidirectional and
pipe is a LOT faster.

Cheers,
-Peter



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message