On Tue Jun 9 14:50:58 EDT 2009, [email protected] wrote: > Interesting read: > http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/6/28495-whither-sockets/fulltext > > If I am right, the filesystem based networking interface offered by Plan 9 > has the three limitations discussed here: > * performance overhead: app requesting data from a socket typically needs > to perform 2 system calls (select/read or alt/read)
alt — which is not required — is not a system call. only a read or write is required. > * lack of an "kernel up-call API": which allows the kernel to inform an > app each time network data is available plan 9 uses synchronous i/o, so this statement doesn't make sense in plan 9. you can use threads to do i/o asynch w.r.t. your application, but the i/o itself is still synchronous w.r.t. the kernel. > * hard to implement "multi homing" with support for multiple network > interfaces i have no idea how this relates to the use of a fs in implementing the network stack. why would using a filsystem (or not) make any difference in the ability to multihome? by the way, plan 9 beats the pants off anything else i've used for multiple network / interface support. it's support for mulitple ip stacks is quite neat. - erik
