> I do have practical experience with named pipe - they work well for me.
> I didn't use them with Octave, I used them e.g.with 'ecasound'. But the
> mechanism is generic.
I have used named pipes many times in the past. But in this case the
blocking behaviour really is an obstacle. The writer must keep running
when the reader is down, the communication is not crucial for the
writer. The reader is a low-priority monitoring process with GUI.
> I also used (zero size) files as semaphores. I.e. the sending process
> creates such a file when data is available, and the receiving process
> deletes the file upon receiving the data thus notifying the sending
> process that new data can be prepared. But this is not necessarily
> related to named pipes - it's just another mechanism.
Creating small new files for each message is unfortunately not an option
on ssd drives.
Anyway, thansk a lot for your help!
I know that you've made a decision, but regarding "Creating small new files for each message is unfortunately not an option
on ssd drives" - it's not an issue. First of all, modern SSD drives have pretty long lifespan, and even swap area is located on them.
But, anyway, thanks to OS buffering if a file exists for several seconds, it's not even physically written to hard drive, it's operated on in OS RAM file buffer.
IIRC UNIX default time after files are flushed to disk are 25 seconds.