On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 11:45:36AM -0400, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >All of this is rather theoretical, and I only have a little bit of > >code thus far. I hope to find the time to make some of these changes > >happen, but these are ambitious suggestions. I can't promise > >anything, unless other people with lots of time volunteer... ;) > >Comments? Criticisms? Volunteers? > > My boss has tasked me with improving AFS performance as well, but I've > taken a completely different direction. Specifically, I've been working > on a TCP transport for Rx. We're specifically interested in using AFS > on long-haul networks, and my thinking was that instead of investing all > of the time in fixing up the Rx protocol, why not leverage all of the > work that's been done on TCP performance in the last decade? > > So far I have a rough implementation working. It's performance is > good, but it's not ready to use by AFS applications just yet. Clearly > working out all of the thread interactions is WAY more complicated > than I thought it would be, and you've clearly thought more about > this than I have. It sounds to me like we should try to coordinate > our work, and have both people's work proceed simultaneously.
Do you wind up serializing multiple calls into 1 TCP stream? How hard would adapting this work to SCTP be? Based on some tests I did on 802.11 wirless awhile back, TCP had better throughput with zero packet loss, but SCTP did a lot better with 5-10% packet loss rates. And when you get to TCP flows of a gigabit or more over long-haul links, packet loss of even something like 0.01% can really kill performance. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
