Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?
Date: 19 Dec 2024 04:27:08 GMT
Organization: none-at-all
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <slrnvm784s.uhq.spamtrap42@one.localnet>
References: <Sp-cnSz8UupYQaf6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vhja4p$23f5e$3@dont-email.me>
 <lNycnZghasCXPtP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <w0b7P.64695$oR74.19157@fx16.iad> <vjjljh$3unfq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjk9nm$2chi$1@dont-email.me> <vjkae9$1uri$11@dont-email.me>
 <68b83l-jtd.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>
 <vjt866$20222$3@dont-email.me>
 <KSGdnbSzt70r0__6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vjtkuq$25l55$1@dont-email.me> <slrnvm4me1.662.spamtrap42@one.localnet>
 <vjuko9$2aoep$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net dMpUxfWuLibDD70XzhjFjARQoipTHSp50CXtBrXFfLp7Fin4s9
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ML5XKwLKGtmw+5GyLp48vCtqv2I= sha256:ZgFsTe+R55JkvzFrOv+lLTx1BkYApF6rLpeVces55W0=
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Bytes: 3796

On 2024-12-18, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>> On 2024-12-18, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/24 8:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:34:30 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> With a pipe or FIFO, you just use simple read and write operations 
>>>>>> and the system handles all the messy stuff for you.  If the pipe 
>>>>>> reaches capacity, write blocks until there is room to write some 
>>>>>> more; if the pipe becomes empty, read blocks until there is more 
>>>>>> data available; when read returns EOF that's the end of the data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yup. Furthermore:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * When the last writer closes its end, any remaining read attempts 
>>>>> get EOF.
>>>>> * When the last reader closes its end, any remaining write attempts 
>>>>> get “broken pipe”.
>>>> 
>>>>   But you're still limited to the amount of RAM the system can 
>>>>   access.
>>>
>>> Not with a pipe or FIFO, which is what is being discussed above.
>>>
>>> The amount of data you can transfer over a pipe is not in any way 
>>> limited by system memory size or any other system imposed limits.
>>>
>>>>   These days that's probably a LOT - but might NOT be,
>>>>   esp for 'embedded' type boards like the older PIs,
>>>>   BBBs and such. Never assume the user has essentially
>>>>   infinite RAM.
>>>
>>> The system will not have infinite RAM.  You can transfer infinite data 
>>> over a pipe (although it will take a while to reach infinity).
>> 
>> A pipe is _NOT_ limited to system RAM!
>> 
>> Using a named pipe on a Raspberry Pi model 1 with a _half_ GB of
>> total RAM, I would routinely transfer _several_ GB in a single
>> stream from an mplayer process to a netcat process.  The only
>> reason that's not currently happening every night these days is
>> the amplified TV antenna lost too much gain due to age, attic
>> heat, etc.
>
> While you are correct, you responded to the wrong post.  I pointed out 
> to the nymshift troll the exact statement you made to me.

Yes, I was supporting your position with a concrete existence
proof.  Not every reply needs to be a contradiction of the
immediately previous post.

I'm not certain, but I think I might have killfiled the nymshift
troll, so your post was the only one for which I had a reference
in order to contradict said nymshift troll.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)