On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > as an aside: i don't think 9p itself limits plan 9 performance > over high-latency links. the limitations have more to do with > the number of outstanding messages, which is 1 in the mnt > driver.
Hm, but what's the alternative here? Readahead seems somewhat attractive, if difficult (I worry about blocking reads and timing sensitive file systems). But there's one problem I can't resolve - how do you know what offset to Tread without consulting the previous Rread's count? Actually, I understand there has been discussion about grouping tags to allow for things like Twalk/Topen batching without waiting for Rwalk (which sounds like a great idea), maybe that would work here also... -sqweek
