On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as an aside: i don't think 9p itself limits plan 9 performance
over high-latency links. the limitations have more to do with
the number of outstanding messages, which is 1 in the mnt
driver.
Hm, but what's the
* sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080918 12:02]:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as an aside: i don't think 9p itself limits plan 9 performance
over high-latency links. the limitations have more to do with
the number of outstanding messages, which is 1 in
Actually, this whole subject was thoroughly discussed at the *first*
iwp9; but apparently nobody is bothered by this enough to implement
any of the then suggested solutions.
Op is not one the solutions discussed at the time, and saying 'just
use another protocol' is not a way to resolve the
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:51 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can multiple threads possibly help with latency caused by
operations that forced to be serial by the protocol? In fact, how can
multithreading help
I'm not saying I know it would be a good idea, but you could implement
speculative-9P which issued the equivalent of the batched requests
without waiting for the responses of the prior request -- since you
are on an in-order pipe the file server would get the requests in
order and if they all
We did this, IIRC. It helped reduce latency, but...
Are the modified kernel files still in your venti?
I would be interested in having a play in a simple disk file
sharing environment.
-Steve
I think I made it using a user-level program to talk to 9p
servers trying to do some caching. I'll try to find out if I still
have it in venti,
I think I just removed
the thing after finding out it was not going to work for retrieving omero trees.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Steve Simon
