Re: [HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-12 Thread Merlin Moncure
> > > Another way of looking at it is memory mapped files. This probably most > > closely resembles unix shared memory and is the de facto standard way > > for interprocess memory block sharing. Sadly, performance will suffer > > because you have to rely on the virtual memory system (think: writ

Re: [HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Curt Sampson
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Another way of looking at it is memory mapped files. This probably most > closely resembles unix shared memory and is the de facto standard way > for interprocess memory block sharing. Sadly, performance will suffer > because you have to rely on the v

Re: [HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:49, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX, > and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native > Windows port --- any issues there? > > >From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use

[HACKERS] Windows SHMMAX (was: Default configuration)

2003-02-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
Does anyone know whether cygwin has a setting comparable to SHMMAX, and if so what is its default value? How about the upcoming native Windows port --- any issues there? From a pure win32 point of view, a good approach would be to use the VirtualAlloc() memory allocation functions and set up a pa