iirc, async clunks are dangerous.
-erik
I never agreed with that conclusion from the oct 2010 discussion here.
`dangerous' is not the right word; they simply confound the use of the protocol
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick
and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this
country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking
people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired.
I'm certainly not, and I'm sick
On Friday 09 of September 2011 11:26:18 Bruce Ellis wrote:
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick
and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this
country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking
people in this country are fed
That was a seriously good get.
I've heard there is a serious build up of SAT (surface-to-air tapas)
deployment in Spain.
I will talk about Inferno Multi Processor experience in these matters
in a WIP, or a tapas bar. Unfortunately my Spanish tutor was deported
for unspecified reasons, and
With 9p's ability to send and receive arbitrary information as file i/o,
does http remain necessary?
Is there any reason that 9p cannot do this ...
''HTTP functions as a
request-responsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request-responseprotocol
in the
client-server
HTTP is technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTTP is
not a good example of how to do things, but over high-latency links 9p
is much slower for getting files.
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 10:36:00 s s wrote:
With 9p's ability to send and receive arbitrary information as file i/o,
does http remain necessary?
Is there any reason that 9p cannot do this ...
http works around high latency by packing as much information as sensible in
one request,
you could create a 9p-http-9p bridge to work around high-latency links
my understanding is, this is pretty much what octopus does for
comms, see http://lsub.org/ls/octopus.html, though it keeps within
the 9p protocol, but it adds some extra RPCs.
[Hope I have not muddled my project names here].
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 11:09:41 dexen wrote:
you could create a 9p-http-9p bridge to work around high-latency links;
it would gather a bunch of 9p operations (...)
the idea is NOT to serialize and send 9p packets themselves, but rather than
to translate a bunch of 9p operations into
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep 8 04:52:08 EDT 2011, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote:
HTTP is technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTTP is
not a good example of how to do things, but over high-latency links 9p
with a single
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:51 AM, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote:
HTTP is technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTTP is
not a good example of how to do things, but over high-latency links 9p
is much slower for getting files.
HTTP tries to be stateless as well. Hence REST.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, dexen deVries dexen.devr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep 8 04:52:08 EDT 2011, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote:
HTTP is technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTTP is
not a good
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep 8 04:52:08 EDT 2011, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote:
HTTP is technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTTP is
not a good
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren j...@jfloren.net wrote:
I do not think it is acceptable to have to fork repeatedly merely to
efficiently read a file. Also, as far as I can tell, exactly one
program (fcp) does that.
Can a single process have multiple outstanding requests? My
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren j...@jfloren.net wrote:
I do not think it is acceptable to have to fork repeatedly merely to
efficiently read a file. Also, as far as I can tell, exactly one
program (fcp)
Can a single process have multiple outstanding requests? My
investigations indicated not, but then again I may have mis-read
things.
So, John, you don't think it's reasonable to rewrite every program a
la fcp? How unreasonable of you :-)
alternatively, the mount driver could be
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:56:10 PDT John Floren j...@jfloren.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrot=
e:
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Sep =A08 04:52:08 EDT 2011, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote:
HTTP is
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:56:10 PDT John Floren j...@jfloren.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrot=
e:
On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
On
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:14:47 PDT John Floren j...@jfloren.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
Is there a way to distinguish between files backed by real
storage synthetic files? Seems to me that the server
wouldn't know if you pipelined
Is there a way to distinguish between files backed by real
storage synthetic files?
that's the wrong distinction. ramfs is syntetic and so is /dev/sd00/raw.
i'm not so sure that you have to make this distinction anyway. it's enough
for the the application to request iounit bytes at a
And it's likely we'll have it again :)
For nix, I've just implemented something called IX, while is mostly
multiplexing a single stream to provide concurrent channels and then send
modified 9p requests on them, to be able to put/get entire files like op does.
The server seems to work, and the
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
On 9 September 2011 06:43, Francisco J Ballesteros n...@lsub.org wrote:
And it's likely we'll have it again :)
For nix, I've just implemented something called IX, while is mostly
multiplexing a single stream to provide concurrent
Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
high-latency links dramatically.
-- vs
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas m...@acm.jhu.edu wrote:
Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
high-latency links dramatically.
not my experience, but I'm willing to be convinced.
ron
Using the hacky inferno-npe async clunk implementation, from october
2010; from a Linux server running inferno-npe to a Linux client
running inferno-npe; latency ~15ms. Getting the sources of cwfs from
the server fell from 5.6 sec to 4.5 sec. For the 9 kernel sources, 51
sec fell to 41 sec.
Got
On Thu Sep 8 19:31:19 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas m...@acm.jhu.edu wrote:
Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
high-latency links dramatically.
not my experience, but I'm willing to be convinced.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:32 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Thu Sep 8 19:31:19 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas m...@acm.jhu.edu wrote:
Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
high-latency
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Bruce Ellis bruce.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
sorry, there isn't time, we're just about to get another result...
28 matches
Mail list logo
