On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:57:21PM +0800, sqweek wrote:
> 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 me
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 <[EM
> 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'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
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
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:51 PM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hm, but what's the alternative here? Readahead seems somewhat
>> attractive, if difficult (I worry about blocking reads and timing
>> sensitive file systems).
>
> the fundamental problem is that it becomes very difficult
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:51 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> also...
>
> the fundamental problem is that it becomes very difficult to
> implement fileservers which don't serve up regular files.
> you migh
> 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
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 shortc
* 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, whi
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 alt
11 matches
Mail list logo
