Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Their public interfaces appear similar. The documentation states that the SemaphoreSlim is a lightweight alternative and doesn’t use Windows Kernel semaphores. This resource states that the SemaphoreSlim is much faster. In what situations does the SemaphoreSlim make more sense over the Semaphore and vice versa?
One difference is that
SemaphoreSlimdoes not permit named semaphores, which can be system-wide. This would mean that a SemaphoreSlim could not be used for cross-process synchronization.The MSDN documentation also indicates that SemSlim should be used when “wait times are expected to be very short”. That would usually dovetail nicely with the idea that the slim version is more lightweight for most of the trade offs.