The way it's done is backwards compatible in the sense that no app/fs knows that anyone is speaking Op. All our tools speak styx, and the inferno kernel/emu is the client of choice. Op is used to brigde separate islands so that nobody else has to care.
On 4/10/07, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. >
