Re: Shared Memory, semaphores and a new "box"

Andreas Fink schrieb:

> How many 10'000 messages per second do you need to transport that you 
> have bottlenecks like that?

consider using this "box" for inter-exchnage at operator level. Which 
means bottlenecks on the signaling layer disappear and we have a fast 
way to inject message where the pipe at the outbound side is much higher 
then for normal SMSC accounts.

> Well thats why there is locking...

yep, you can't operate on the same variables (shared memory) via 2 
interdependently scheduled logic.

> Semaphores are to sync inside a process in multiple threads. They dont 
> work between multiple processes. You would need a file locking mechanism 
> or the like.

@Alejandro: please have a view here:

   http://www.ossp.org/pkg/lib/mm/

this is obviously you're locking for ;)

> I would say the whole design is wrong. Shared memory is different in 
> most operating systems and frankly I don't think your real problem is 
> there. Maybe you share the real issue you are facing?

Ralf's MM lib layer may be an acceptable approach to have an OS 
abstractive approach.

Stipe

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------