Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much

Re: Looking for alternative for IPC::Shareable (or increase size)

by bliako (Prior)
on Aug 06, 2020 at 09:29 UTC ( #11120412=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Looking for alternative for IPC::Shareable (or increase size)

There is no pre-set limit to the number of processes that can bind to data; nor is there a pre-set limit to the complexity of the underlying data of the tied variables[2]. The amount of data that can be shared within a single bound variable is limited by the system's maximum size for a shared memory segment (the exact value is system-dependent).

From IPC::Shareable. So it seems you hit an OS limit.

You think you want *unlimited* shared memory segments. That can't happen. Unless you specify a reasonable upper-bound and then try negotiating that with the OS. Or modify the logic of your program. Multiple shared segments to store a single string perhaps?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Looking for alternative for IPC::Shareable (or increase size) -send in parts
by bliako (Prior) on Aug 07, 2020 at 09:00 UTC

    When your messages exceed the 64K limit why not communicate them in parts. Message 1 of 6, 2 of 6 etc. each 64K in size. The receiver through some metadata will know how to put them together.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11120412]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (3)
As of 2020-11-26 01:34 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found