From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 24 23: 9:54 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 9F72415234 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:09:51 -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 752381C03; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:09:49 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Brian Somers 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 Brian Somers of "Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:24:09 GMT." <200001250124.BAA36765@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:09:49 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20000125070949.752381C03@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brian Somers wrote: > > "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 :-() Neither is rfork()... Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message