d-bus vs other interprocess communication system

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday 06 June 2008 16:39:31 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 06 June 2008 16:18:35 Adriano Pallavicino wrote:
> > Hi, i am Adriano ad i come from Italy. I have a question about d-bus and
> > how many resources utilize. Of course is the best way to share data to
> > and from processes, less code to write, so less possibility to introduce
> > a bug. But, how many resources cost it? If i have an arm11 500MHz with
> > 64Mb of ddr ram there isn't a problem, but if i have a small system with
> > small ram? Is better to use a shared/mapped memory? where is the border
> > line that can help me in the choice of one system or another? Thank you
> > very much
>
> Without knowing details, my feeling would be if the system is powerful
> enough to run linux without problems, it should be good enough for dbus.
>

It'll depend very much on what kind of data is being transferred, how much of 
it and the maximum latency acceptable.

D-Bus was not designed for high-throughput low-latency transfers. For 
instance, I would not recommend using D-Bus to transfer window pixmaps to a 
frame buffer server (30 fps @ 640x480 = 8.8 MB/s). For that, a shared memory 
is probably better, or transferring directly to VRAM. Actually, even for a 
data download, where the latency isn't of issue, I wouldn't recommend D-Bus, 
but a dedicated channel.

D-Bus is good for short, structured messages, point to point or point to 
multipoint.

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
    PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20080606/0d501270/attachment.pgp