On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:26:32 EST erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > > On a slightly different tangent, 9p is simple but it doesn't > > handle latency very well. To make efficient use of long fat > > pipes you need more complex mechanisms -- there is no getting > > around that fact. rsync & hg in spite of their complexity > > beat the pants off replica. Their cache behavior is not very > > relevant here. Similarly file readahead is usually a win. > > i don't think that it makes sense to say that since replica > is slow and hg/rsync are fast, it follows that 9p is slow.
It is the other way around. 9p can't handle latency so on high latency pipes programs using 9p won't be as fast as programs using streaming (instead of rpc). Granted that there are many other factors when it comes to hg & replica but latency is a major one. > similarly, you blame c++ compilers for excessive inlining. I am suggesting modern compilers should ignore the inline keyword and be cache aware. For the same reason as why the register keyword is mostly ignored. People are wont to use inlining in the hope of improving performance (just as they used register). Sometime it is better to fix a program than try educating the hordes. Actually what I'd really like to suggest is C++ shouldn't be used at all :-)
