On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:21 AM Bakul Shah <ba...@iitbombay.org> wrote: > 9p itself is low performance but that is a separate issue.
Bakul, what are the units? It might be helpful to quantify this statement. Are you possibly conflating Plan 9 file systems being slow and 9p being slow? As Rob pointed out in 2013, "If go install is slow on Plan 9, it's because Plan 9's file system is slow (which it is and always has been)", so slowness in Plan 9 file systems is to be expected. 9p itself does have its limits, which is why Bell Labs Antwerp started an effort in 2011 to replace it, but the new work never went very far. I also know of a number of efforts in the virtualization world where 9p was discarded for performance reasons. It's hard to argue with the 100x performance improvement that comes with virtiofs, for example. Gvisor is replacing 9p: https://github.com/google/gvisor/milestone/6. Although, in the latter case, I would argue the problem is more with Linux limitations than 9p limitations -- linux can't seem to walk more than one pathname component at a time, for example, since it has the old school namei loop. But I'm wondering if you have a measurement with numbers. For rough order of magnitude, HPC file systems can deliver 10 Gbytes/ second for file reads nowadays, but getting there took 20 years of work. When we ran Plan 9 on Blue Gene, with the 6 Gbyte/second toroidal mesh connect for each node, we never came remotely close to that figure. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T769854fafd2b7d35-M410e08e9297838b9bb37bb5a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
