* 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, which is 1 in the mnt > > driver. > > Hm, but what's the alternative here? Readahead seems somewhat > attractive, if difficult (I worry about blocking reads and timing > sensitive file systems). But there's one problem I can't resolve - how > do you know what offset to Tread without consulting the previous > Rread's count? > Actually, I understand there has been discussion about grouping tags > to allow for things like Twalk/Topen batching without waiting for > Rwalk (which sounds like a great idea), maybe that would work here > also...
There are some interesting approaches which have been discussed at the last iwp9, including op from nemo's team. http://plan9.bell-labs.com/iwp9/papers/10.op.esoriano.pdf Maybe that is worth looking at for your issue? Kind regards, Christian -- You may use my gpg key for replies: pub 1024D/47F79788 2005/02/02 Christian Kellermann (C-Keen)
pgpLe0TY3h60a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
