Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:14:46 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: unix domain socket with shared memory ?
Message-ID:	<20020207161446.C14241@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<000e01c1af19$013888d0$01000001 AT BRAMSCHE>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<000e01c1af19$013888d0$01000001@BRAMSCHE>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Some guys may say, unix domain sockets are not implemented through tcp connection, but I'm relative sure, that this
> is true:

Huh?  Why are you "relative" sure?  Didn't you take a look into
the Cygwin sources which would be the right place to learn how
something's implemented?  net.cc is a good starting point.

I'm a bit surprised by your results, though.  Since AF_LOCAL
and AF_INET are implemented the same way, they should be
nearly equally fast^Wslow.  AF_LOCAL just has a bit of an
overhead by some additional tests but the naked read() and
write() calls should be nearly equivalent.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -