> > 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.
you're still comparing apples and girraffes. rsync/hg have protocols ment for syncing. replica uses 9p, which is not a protocol designed for syncing. it's designed for regular file access. it would be similarly difficult to use rsync's protocol directly for file access. while 9p can and should be improved upon, this case doesn't seem like a real motivator. the nfs guys don't complain similarly about nfs loosing to rsync. - erik
