Both shared memory and message queues can be used to exchange information between processes. The difference is in how they are used.
Shared memory is exactly what you'd think: it's an area of storage that can be read and written by more than one process. It provides no inherent synchronization; in other words, it's up to the programmer to ensure that one process doesn't clobber another's data. But it's efficient in terms of throughput: reading and writing are relatively fast operations.
A message queue is a one-way pipe: one process writes to the queue, and another reads the data in the order it was written until an end-of-data condition occurs. When the queue is created, the message size (bytes per message, usually fairly small) and queue length (maximum number of pending messages) are set. Access is slower than shared memory because each read/write operation is typically a single message. But the queue guarantees that each operation will either processes an entire message successfully or fail without altering the queue. So the writer can never fail after writing only a partial message, and the reader will either retrieve a complete message or nothing at all.
Shared memory can be deemed as faster (low overhead, high volume of data passing) then queues. But queues on the other hand, requires high overhead (the set up for making a queue to be permanent etc) with low volume of data.
The onus with shared memory is that you have to implement synchronization in order to be thread safe. Have a look at the excellent article by Beej on IPC.
Message passing is useful for exchanging smaller amounts of data, because no conflicts need be avoided. It's much easier to implement than is shared memory for intercomputer communication. Also, as you've already noticed, message passing has the advantage that application developers don't need to worry about the details of protections like shared memory.
Shared memory allows maximum speed and convenience of communication, as it can be done at memory speeds when within a computer. Shared memory is usually faster than message passing, asmessage-passing are typically implemented using system calls and thus require the more time-consuming tasks of kernel intervention. In contrast, in shared-memory systems, system calls are required only to establish shared-memory regions. Once established, all access are treated as normal memory accesses w/o extra assistance from the kernel.
Off the top of my head and assuming you talk about posix message queues (not the SysV ones):
- Pipes aren't limited in size, message queues are.
- Pipes can be integrated in systems using file descriptors, message queues have their own set of functions, though linux supports
select()
,poll()
,epoll()
and friends on themqd_t
. - Pipes, once closed, require some amount of cooperation on both sides to reestablish them, message queues can be closed and reopened on either side without the coorporation of the other side.
- Pipes are flat, much like a stream, to impose a message structure you would have to implement a protocol on both sides, message queues are message oriented already, no care has to be taken to get, say, the fifth message in the queue.