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 technically different and not easily comparable to 9p. HTT= > P is > >> > > > not a good example of how to do things, but over high-latency link= > s 9p > >> > > > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 with a single outstanding request > >> > > > >> > > > is much slower for getting files. > >> > > > >> > > there, fixed that for ya. > >> > > >> > is 9p windowable at all? is that implemented? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 9p has tagged requests. > > > > cf. /sys/src/cmd/fcp.c > > > > - erik > > > > > > 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 > investigations indicated not, but then again I may have mis-read > things.
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 multiple read/write requests on a given connection (in-order delivery). May be the client can do read-ahead of N blocks. But one issue with read-ahead / write-behind is the problem of head of line blocking -- further non-r/w requests queue up behind them. That is why FTP uses a control connection for all the commands & responses but data is delivered on a fresh tcp connection.
