Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:46:56 -0800 From: "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com> To: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Performance issue with rfork() and single socketpairs versus multiple socketpairs. Message-ID: <0f0f01bf677d$b307a9a0$1e80000a@avantgo.com> References: <01b601bf6696$60701930$1e80000a@avantgo.com> <200001241939.LAA91219@apollo.backplane.com> <0be801bf6715$601423d0$1e80000a@avantgo.com> <200001251752.JAA04953@apollo.backplane.com> <20000125120506.W26520@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net> wrote: > I think you probably want to experiment with pools attached to the > pipe, and you ought to be using pipe rather than socketpair. My tests indicate that pipe performance in this case is identical to socketpair performance. Perhaps because I'm sending so little data over the wire (in the real thing, most of the data is in shared memory, the pipes just provide the queuing). > Meaning > have a group of children share a pipe, but not more than N, where N > is where you start to see performance problems. Actually, the hit comes rather quickly, 8 procs per pipe causes half the hit, even 4 is substantial. In any case, once I've gone away from having one pipe, I've already lost the advantage and might as well have a pipe per worker. I'd much rather manage one pipe than 32 pipes, but managing 4 pipes versus 32 pipes is less compelling. Thanks, scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0f0f01bf677d$b307a9a0$1e80000a>