"Emerson, Tom # El Monte" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:8vcfnf0142v@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Some differences I can think of offhand:
>
> named pipes have a BYTE limit of about 4k, or so I'm led to believe from
all
> the documentation I've seen on pipes [maybe it's 16k or at best 64k, but
in
> any case, it also seems to be limited to "one or two messages" pending]
>
> named pipes can ONLY be accessed on the local machine -- message files can
> be accessed remotely via dsline/remote file equate
>
> On the plus side, it might be easier to port unix programs that already
make
> use of "named pipes" using a pipe instead of subverting the program to use
> message files...  (IOW, "select" should work on a named pipe...)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Curtis Larsen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 4:20 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: MSG Files vs. Named Pipes?
> >
> >
> > Are there any functional differences between a message file
> > and a named
> > pipe?
> > When would you want one vs. the other?  (Papers?  Links?  FAQs?)
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Curtis
> >
I started to use named pipes but had to revert to using message files
because of problems. The limit seems to be about 10k. HP Australia are
currently working on this problem but I understand there won't be a patch
anytime soon.

Regards

--
Mark Undrill
Affirm Limited