"Ethan Gardener" <eeke...@fastmail.fm> writes: > What's the advantage over fcp(1)? 9p can have numerous requests "in > flight" at once to work around latency issues, but of all the user > programs, fcp is probably the only one which takes advantage of this.
The problem is that throughput and responsiveness are enemies. If you're trying to push a large quantity of data down a TCP connection, and try to do anything interactive over that same connection, the latency will make that interaction very slow. In order to improve responsiveness, the transport medium needs to know how to differentiate between the two kinds of traffic. In other words, you would need a way to set different TCP options on 9P messages for different purposes. "Joe S" <j...@lifesoftserv.com> writes: > Maybe a file server thats purpose is to mux parts of another file > sounded like fun. My thoughts are that you could then transer thoes > chunks on a single destination on seperate connections. I might be possible to create a file server which interposes itself between a 9P client and 9P server and bonds multiple network connections together into a single 9P session. It would be sort of a userspace replacement for the kernel's mount driver. Wait a minute, this problem can be solved with a filesystem? Of course... I should have thought of that. ;) ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te69bb0fce0f0ffaf-Mdb27b326eb1a0019858aa910 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
