Hi kx community,
I am browsing some kx documents, and read from https://code.kx.com/q/wp/ipc/#unix-domain-socket, that " Using a UDS to communicate when processes are on the same machine will avoid some checks and operations in the TCP/IP protocol,". Does anyone know what was skipped during TCP establishing? Also, is there any drawback using unix domain hopen over regular TCP/IP, namely is h1 “faster and lighter” than h without sacrifice?
h:hopen `::1500
h1:hopen `:unix//1500
Thanks
Hi ,
When it says it will “avoid some checks and operations” this is due to unix domain sockets (UDS ) avoiding things related to the tcp/ip stack (headers, routing,
) - the kdb+ code itself is the same for both. Tcp/ip loopback interface has gotten more efficient over the years, so its always worth benchmarking your particular use-case against both.
UDS buffers do not auto-tune, unlike tcp, and whilst setting the send buffer size can impact performance, setting the recv buffer has no impact - neither of these are settable from within kdb+ yet. This can impact performance where large data sets (that exceed the uds send buffer size) are being transferred between otherwise busy processes.
Hope this helps!
Thanks,
Megan
Hi ,
When it says it will “avoid some checks and operations” this is due to unix domain sockets (UDS ) avoiding things related to the tcp/ip stack (headers, routing,
) - the kdb+ code itself is the same for both. Tcp/ip loopback interface has gotten more efficient over the years, so its always worth benchmarking your particular use-case against both.
UDS buffers do not auto-tune, unlike tcp, and whilst setting the send buffer size can impact performance, setting the recv buffer has no impact - neither of these are settable from within kdb+ yet. This can impact performance where large data sets (that exceed the uds send buffer size) are being transferred between otherwise busy processes.
Hope this helps!
Thanks,
Megan
thanks for the explanation.
Cheers