Thank you for running the comparison. So, we're looking at about ~20% speed improvement, not super awesome but still noticeable. I think in the short term I'll move forward with sockets. If (when) I hit a performance issue I'll look at the named pipe option.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Ben Craig <[email protected]> wrote: > For an idea of the performance difference... > With C++, using sockets, I can do 10000 "trivial" IPC calls in 0.328708 > seconds. > With C++, using named pipes, I can do 10000 "trivial" IPC calls in > 0.263701 seconds. > > Both using framed transports, and the threaded server. > > Joseph Fradley <[email protected]> wrote on 03/17/2014 10:08:28 AM: > > > From: Joseph Fradley <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected], > > Date: 03/17/2014 10:08 AM > > Subject: Re: TPipe and TPipeServer for C# > > > > Great, thanks. I'll create a JIRA feature ticket for it and I'll give it > a > > whirl over the next few days. > > > > Having named pipe transport between a C# app and a C++ app should give > > better performance then sockets (when on the same machine of course). > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Carl Yeksigian <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > I had started to work on this over a year ago; I've rebased and pushed > it > > > up here: > > > > > > https://github.com/carlyeks/thrift/commit/ > > 313e0e2d3d46607ce1185ce55e3d1c4ebce03241 > > > . > > > I never needed to use it, so I never finished or tested it. There > isn't a > > > JIRA, so feel free to create one. > > > > > > -Carl > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Joseph Fradley > <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Are there current plans to bring the Named Pipe transport over to > C#? > > > > Currently, it appears to only be available for C++. I searched the > > > feature > > > > tickets and didn't find anything. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > >
