d-bus vs other interprocess communication system

[Noah Kantrowitz]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbus-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:dbus-
> bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:03 AM
> To: dbus at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: d-bus vs other interprocess communication system
> 
> 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.

But it can be handy to use DBus to do autodiscovery and negotiation for
those other channels.

--Noah