Remote engine: named pipes vs IP (OpenInsight 32-Bit)
At 28 APR 2004 05:29:02AM David Salvesen wrote:
This was touched on a few days ago, but a question on Popups masked another part of it .
If I recall correctly the 2.1 driver is faster for IP than for Named pipes. However, when running a remote engine (or just an out of process one for that matter) performance is way better on Named Pipes that for IP. Of course, it is not possible to run Named Pipes on 98. Is there a reason behind this performance hit and is there a way around it (not just for 98 but there could be reasons why for some installations Named Pipes are not an option).
As a subsidiary question: what ports etc are required to be open for Named Pipes.
Many thanks.
At 05 MAY 2004 04:45AM The Sprezzatura Group wrote:
We'll do the easy question first. There's no port required for named pipes, though I'd avoid the standards like 80, 25, 23 and so forth.
You may have some of this backwards. It's possible to run named pipes through DOS.
Regarding the speed, there are various issues and things that come into play. If you're connecting to a local out of process engine, then named pipes would be the fastest, since it's a local pipe, which is basically a memory transfer, and not a network communication.
As for why one is faster than other, that's up to your configuration. Named pipes can run over TCP/IP or over NetBIOS, so depending on which one you are using to connect to the remote engine will determine your speed.
The Sprezzatura Group
World Leaders in all things RevSoft
At 05 MAY 2004 04:45AM Donald Bakke wrote:
David,
Not a comprehensive response, but in general you should find Named Pipes faster when the remote engine is running locally and TCP/IP faster when the remote engine is running over a network connection. My understanding is that this should be your rule-of-thumb whenever possible.
dbakke@srpcs.com
