From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <45219fb00709060604s2d6fc50ex270cfcf30c36067a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  6 Sep 2007 15:04:14 +0200
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Llu=EDs_Batlle?=" <viriketo@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [9fans] Pipes on UNIX
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b8fce71e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Hello,

I understand from [1] that named pipes are suposed to use the
filesystem as an "unlimited" buffer for the pipe. This would be an
advantage against a pipe deadlock I'm experiencing using unnamed pipes
(a CGI communicating wit Apache), but I cannot reproduce the
"unlimited buffer" in Linux. Maybe I should fcntl the named pipe or
something similar setting a buffer limit, and the filesystem will be
used? Or maybe the named pipes were never supposed to use the disk as
the pipe buffer?

I don't know any other place where I may ask this question and get
answered. My google search didn't bring me useful results since now.

Otherwise I will probably write a simple program which acts as an
unlimited pipe, using a disk backend as data queue.

[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~UniCon/reference-manual/Reference_Manual_41.html

(Sorry for a non-plan9 question...)