Correction:
Shared memory is can be a way of interprocess communication
But the processes sharing memory do not have to communicate anything between them; the memory remains shared and readable by one without the other being in any way aware of the read.
To both processes, the memory is a part of its process, and neither need communicate to the other in order to use it.
No communication; no IPC.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
I think what is being discussed is copy-on-write. If the forked process doesn't write the data, there is no copy made. Many processes could read the same data without separate copies being made.
PS: I looked on the internet for a machine of this size. It is indeed possible to get a 198 GB memory machine from Dell. Maybe specialty vendors offer more memory? But even if this machine can do it, it would seem that a "hot fail" with a backup machine would be necessary. I am still thinking that this thing is so big and mission critical that an N+1 network would be better?
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
But the processes sharing memory do not have to communicate anything between them; the memory remains shared and readable by one without the other being in any way aware of the read.
One process has to fill the memory with data in order the other could read it. The fact that it doesn't aware about reads is not significant, communication doesn't have to be two way. My TV can receive signal without making TV tower aware of that, it's still communication.
| [reply] |