> > 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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
