One word: latency. By the way, is anyone working on the solutions to the latency problem we discussed at IWP9? I know nemo has a somewhat different solution with OP but I still would like to see something backwards compatible with existing 9P.
uriel On 4/10/07, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i don't understand why ssh "using a seperate protocol" implies that it should be significantly faster than 9p. could you explain why you think this? On Mon Apr 9 19:27:33 EDT 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:22:27AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > >My take is that bringing in mercurial, and then using mercurial with > >mounted file systems, instead of ssh, would be quite neat. And, we are > >close to having it. > > I'd think that it would be practically a no-op, but I'm not sure of hg's > locking semantics. I'd say that it would be a very good idea to support > cpu and ssh, though, since ssh uses a separate protocol which should be > significantly faster than just doing the work over 9P. Again, I'm not > sure of the details.
