Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:47:38 +0200 From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: rihad <rihad@mail.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: preventing FIFO from EOF Message-ID: <E1LBC70-0008qm-Gl@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <49429027.8060701@mail.ru> References: <494235CA.2050101@mail.ru> <E1LB7zz-0006kU-SU@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <49426B64.1070004@mail.ru> <E1LBAeU-00086X-I3@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <49429027.8060701@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > BTW, buffer was written way back when memory was measured > > in kilobytes and the ethernet was 10 mgb, so things have changed a bit, and > > its effectivness is questionable :-) > > > My scenario: > > prog1 | prog2 > > where both are daemons. prog1 does all the work, and sends commands for > prog2 to do when needed. I don't want prog1 to block while prog2 is busy > executing the command. So a buffer is inserted between the two: > > prog1 | buffer | prog2 > > Asynchronous execution of commands. It's as simple as that. ahh, but you see, you have now 4 processes, which the scheduler has no real reason to treat specialy, each can block. Then again, I have no idea how much data you are moving around, and how fast you need to process it. buffer was designed to keep a magnetic tape writing at full speed - streaming, or at least for some longer time. then again, there is nothing better than trying it out, instead of out guessing the os :-) cheers, danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1LBC70-0008qm-Gl>