What are the trade-offs between using a System V and a Posix semaphore?
From O'Reilly:
One marked difference between the System V and POSIX semaphore implementations is that in System V you can control how much the semaphore count can be increased or decreased; whereas in POSIX, the semaphore count is increased and decreased by 1. POSIX semaphores do not allow manipulation of semaphore permissions, whereas System V semaphores allow you to change the permissions of semaphores to a subset of the original permission. Initialization and creation of semaphores is atomic (from the user's perspective) in POSIX semaphores. From a usage perspective, System V semaphores are clumsy, while POSIX semaphores are straight-forward The scalability of POSIX semaphores (using unnamed semaphores) is much higher than System V semaphores. In a user/client scenario, where each user creates her own instances of a server, it would be better to use POSIX semaphores. System V semaphores, when creating a semaphore object, creates an array of semaphores whereas POSIX semaphores create just one. Because of this feature, semaphore creation (memory footprint-wise) is costlier in System V semaphores when compared to POSIX semaphores. It has been said that POSIX semaphore performance is better than System V-based semaphores. POSIX semaphores provide a mechanism for process-wide semaphores rather than system-wide semaphores. So, if a developer forgets to close the semaphore, on process exit the semaphore is cleaned up. In simple terms, POSIX semaphores provide a mechanism for non-persistent semaphores.
1.4m articles
1.4m replys
5 comments
57.0k users