> > if the problem with 9p is latency, then here's a decision that could be > > revisisted. it would be a complication, but it seems to me better than > > a http-like protocol, bundling requets together or moving to a storage- > > oriented protocol. > > Can you explain why is it better than bundling requests > together? Bundling requests can cut out a few roundtrip > delays, which can make a big difference for small files. > What you are talking about seems useful for large files [if I > understand you correctly]. Second, 9p doesn't seem to > restrict any replies other than Rflushes to be sent in order. > That means the server can still send Rreads in any order but > if a Tflush is seen, it must clean up properly. The > situation is analogous what happens in an an OoO processor > (where results must be discarded in case of exceptions and > mis-prediction on branches).
bundling is equivalent to running the original sequence on the remote machine and shipping only the result back. some rtt latency is eliminated but i think things will still be largely in-order because walks will act like fences. i think the lots- of-small-files case will still suffer. maybe i'm not quite following along. bundling will also require additional agent on the server to marshal the bundled requests. - erik
