From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <07f501c3aae5$d81085a0$b9844051@insultant.net>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <98ecf74e8b94b603b03b1ccd6e193823@vitanuova.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] v8 shell
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:31:03 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 89b4a830-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> actually, you can get away with named pipes, at moderate cost.
> byron's rc could do this.

yeah, that sounds right.

now that reminds me of some benchmark run against named
pipes and message queues.  it got dumped on my desk and
i was asked to comment.

now pipes had an almost 1:1 real to cpu time correlation and
were a bit slower.  message queues were another story; they
used less cpu time but the real time was _more_.  this had me
puzzled.

seems someone at USG had forgotten about sleep and wakeup
and had a timeout to kick the queues into action, greatly reducing
the cpu time but greatly _increasing_ the real time.