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

MMlib looks promising... I'll get my hands on it on the weekend, let's see
what comes out.

Thanks for the tip!

Regards,

Alejandro

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Stipe Tolj <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 <st_%7Bat%7D_tolj.org>           mailto:
> stolj_{at}_kannel.org <stolj_%7Bat%7D_kannel.org>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>