On Monday 31 January 2005 17:02, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Your other option would be to use processes with shared memory (either
> sysV or memory-mapped files). This gets you the speed of shared memory
> maps, but also lets you get the reliability of not sharing your entire
> memory space.
>
> If yo
Oded Shimon wrote:
On Sunday 30 January 2005 11:41, Miles wrote:
I'd say that this was one of the rare cases where a solution using
threads is not only superior to one using event-driven IO, but actually
required.
Yeah, I reached just about the same conclusion. At first I thought only 2
threads
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Oded Shimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have implemented this, but it has a major disadvantage - every 'write()'
>only write 4k at a time, never more, because of how non-blocking pipes are
>done. at 20,000 context switches a second, this method reaches barely 10
On Sunday 30 January 2005 11:41, Miles wrote:
> My suggestion would be to perform blocking writes in a seperate thread
> for each of the two written-to fds. You can still use select/poll for
> the read side ... tho' once you're using threading on the write side it
> might be more straightforward to
A Unix C programming question. Has to do mostly with pipes, so I am hoping I
am asking in the right place.
I have a rather unique situation. I have 2 programs, neither of which have
control over.
Program A writes into TWO fifo's.
Program B reads from two fifo's.
My program is the middle step.
5 matches
Mail list logo
