From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 24 17:25:19 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from awfulhak.org (dynamic-116.max4-du-ws.dialnetwork.pavilion.co.uk [212.74.9.244]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C7215279 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA62626; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:24:10 GMT (envelope-from brian@lan.awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost.lan.Awfulhak.org [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA36765; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:24:09 GMT (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200001250124.BAA36765@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 To: Peter Wemm Cc: "Scott Hess" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: Performance issue with rfork() and single socketpairs versus multiple socketpairs. In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Wemm of "Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:10:27 +0800." <20000124221027.77F651CD4@overcee.netplex.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:24:09 +0000 From: Brian Somers 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. Although pipe(2)'s bi-directional capabilities are not standard (I've been stung by this in the past :-() > Cheers, > -Peter -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message