Timeline for IPC performance: Named Pipe vs Socket
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2023 at 9:48 | comment | added | binaryLV | @AxelRietschin, in our case, messages will be sent between threads, so there's no point in using TCP. It's std::queue with locks for now, with some batching to reduce the frequency of locking. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 10:39 | comment | added | Axel Rietschin | @binaryLV TCP overhead is around 40 bytes if I recall correctly. Maybe you should consider batching your messages if they go to the same destination? | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 6:55 | comment | added | binaryLV | @AxelRietschin, 128 bytes is NOT "unrealistically small". I'm currently looking for solutions for sending tens/hundreds of thousands "randomly-sized" messages per second between some 20+ threads, with most messages being only 14 bytes. | |
| Jul 22, 2021 at 1:39 | comment | added | Michael Quad | how much would it be compared named pipe to simple process start & argument pass? | |
| May 3, 2021 at 19:07 | comment | added | Axel Rietschin | "only 16 %" :-) 16% is huge if you have a million servers and you are the one paying the electricity bill. Also, 128 bytes is unrealistically small. | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 13:33 | comment | added | chronoxor | Message Queue is a system XSI message queue (man7.org/linux/man-pages/man0/sys_msg.h.0p.html) | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 14:29 | comment | added | ovunccetin | Thanks for the detailed benchmarking. Do you mean "multiprocessing.Queue" with "Message Queue"? | |
| Jan 12, 2019 at 21:32 | history | answered | chronoxor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |