On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 04:24:24PM -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
> > > I was pointed to IPC::Sharable, IPC::Sharelite.
> > > I'll look at those.
> >
> > Take a look at IPC::MM for a shared memory hash implemented in C. Als
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 04:24:24PM -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
> > I was pointed to IPC::Sharable, IPC::Sharelite.
> > I'll look at those.
>
> Take a look at IPC::MM for a shared memory hash implemented in C. Also,
> File::Cache is sometimes faster than the IPC
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
> > I was pointed to IPC::Sharable, IPC::Sharelite.
> > I'll look at those.
>
> Take a look at IPC::MM for a shared memory hash implemented in C. Also,
> File::Cache is sometimes faster than the IPC modules. I don't think any
> of these sol
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
> I was pointed to IPC::Sharable, IPC::Sharelite.
> I'll look at those.
Take a look at IPC::MM for a shared memory hash implemented in C. Also,
File::Cache is sometimes faster than the IPC modules. I don't think any
of these solve problems like sharing sockets an
--- "G.W. Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
>
> > Is there no Apache::SharedMemory (or some such)? If not, does
> > anyone think it would be worth the time for someone (like me) to
> > sit down and write it? (Couldn't it be done?)
>
> There be
On 12/6/00 3:42 PM, Paul wrote:
> The parent process could declare a shared memory segment at boot time.
> Each child's init could spawn a shared memory interface object.
> Wouldn't that allow for some resource pooling to be cleaner?
> How would that interact with per-child namespaces (if at all)?
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul wrote:
> Is there no Apache::SharedMemory (or some such)? If not, does
> anyone think it would be worth the time for someone (like me) to sit
> down and write it? (Couldn't it be done?)
There be dragons.
73,
Ged.
--
--- Jim Woodgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2) Sharing information between the processes. There's lots of
> different ways to do it, but none really jumps out as an end-all
> solution.
Is there no Apache::SharedMemory (or some such)?
If not, does anyone think it would be worth the time
