On 21 February 2011 18:53, Nemo nemo.m...@gmail.com wrote:
i reply myself; i think they use sst to mix multimedia streams, and
in that case a lost packet in one stream (say text) would
delay other streams (say audio) that do not need to be delayed if
you use sst.
But otherwise I still think
i've also been experimenting with a 9p modification that
suggested some while ago, allowing multiple outstanding
requests to be queued in sequence. it works, but the code
still needs quite a bit of polishing.
queued or sent?
- erik
On 22 February 2011 13:25, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i've also been experimenting with a 9p modification that
suggested some while ago, allowing multiple outstanding
requests to be queued in sequence. it works, but the code
still needs quite a bit of polishing.
queued or
i reply myself; i think they use sst to mix multimedia streams, and
in that case a lost packet in one stream (say text) would
delay other streams (say audio) that do not need to be delayed if
you use sst.
But otherwise I still think that muxing a tcp stream might provide
something similar
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:53:30PM +0100, Nemo wrote:
i reply myself; i think they use sst to mix multimedia streams, and
in that case a lost packet in one stream (say text) would
delay other streams (say audio) that do not need to be delayed if
you use sst.
But otherwise I still think
why not mux tcp instead?
On Feb 20, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
i think it might be helpful to have a transport protocol along the lines
of Bryan Ford's SST, which allows a stream to create substreams
with separate flow control and other attributes. a
On Sun Feb 20 11:48:58 EST 2011, nemo.m...@gmail.com wrote:
why not mux tcp instead?
there's more to the world than tcp?
- erik
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nemo nemo.m...@gmail.com wrote:
why not mux tcp instead?
See the paper. Among other things, independent flow control
on the different sub-streams.
http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/sst-abs.html
i did read it before asking, and i'm still wondering why
not mux tcp instead (provided you dont want/need that extra feature
or dont implement it that way)
On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Russ Cox r...@swtch.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nemo nemo.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:35:28 GMT Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
i think it might be helpful to have a transport protocol along the lines
of Bryan Ford's SST, which allows a stream to create substreams
with separate flow control and other attributes. a primary 9p stream
might
i think it might be helpful to have a transport protocol along the lines
of Bryan Ford's SST, which allows a stream to create substreams
with separate flow control and other attributes. a primary 9p stream
might create a substream for a large Tread or Twrite.
the facility could be emulated for
11 matches
Mail list logo
