%-W-NORML Normal Successful Completion
--
cinap :)
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:29:29 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@labs.coraid.com
wrote:
Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p
operation? (I have 100Mbit).
With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more
than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best
did you do testing at regular lan latencies? what i see on my networks
is usually = 30µs.
- erik
I induced latencies similar to those found on the Internet. My tests at LAN
speeds (500us in my sub-optimal setup) had 9P at essentially the same
transfer rate as HTTP. My work was
issuing multiple outstanding
messages is how protocols like aoe, pcie, etc. get speed. writes are posted.
the question for me is how does one make this easy and natural. one way
is to allow the mnt driver to issue multiple concurrent reads or writes for
the same i/o. another would be to
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and
Mac OS X.
I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to
set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from
On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use
either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device.
note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure
notification, in particular, can be lacking, and
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Anthony Sorace a...@9srv.net wrote:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
Can anyone shed some light on why I might want one and not the other?
Are there any other options?
ken's fs is a kernel, and essentially gives you a 9p-accessible file
What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use
either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device.
note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure
notification, in particular, can be lacking, and they're more restricted in
what
they try to do
Right now (only one location) I am using a Solaris server with ZFS
that serves SMB and iSCSI. It works great, there's nothing wrong with
it, but I would like a Plan9 solution. Or do you think iSCSI would
perform better with this latency? (I can't use AoE as AoE is not
routable).
use a
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and
Mac OS X.
I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9,
if the link is stable, cfs(4) might be useful.
-Skip
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two
Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p
operation? (I have 100Mbit).
With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more
than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be
6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on
100Mbps link for
13 matches
Mail list logo
