How many named pipes is too many?

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: How many named pipes is too many?

Re: How many named pipes is too many?

Post by Guest »

Thanks very much.

Re: How many named pipes is too many?

Post by support »

Hello,

There is no problem with 96 streams. Do what's more convenient for you.

It's however a bit daunting (albeit possible) to set them up manually at the IP core factory. If you like, you may set up one stream of each sort on a custom IP core, and contact support by email for having them duplicated. Mention the core ID number and which streams you want to duplicate and in what way.

Regards,
Eli

How many named pipes is too many?

Post by Guest »

So I'm working on the design for a Xilinx FPGA + Xillybus system that might have 24 channels requiring 48 named pipes, one for each direction of the main data. I need command-and-control (C&C) as well. I could have an ADDITIONAL set of 48 named pipes, one for each direction of the C&C. But this brings my total number of name pipes, as well as total number of FIFOs on the FPGA, to a whopping 96. Alternatively, I could put all my C&C onto a single pair of named pipes, or I could take a partial position and put the C&C onto three pairs of named pipes (because those 24 channels are of three different types). These alternatives reduce my total number of named pipes and FPGA FIFOs by about a factor of two, but they increase complexity as multiple linux threads might be needing to independently exercise C&C and, with the C&C being over a shared channel, sharing and collision complications arise.

What are your thoughts about which way to go?

Top