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 listeni
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 f
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 a
>> 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
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Bruce Ellis 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...
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:32 PM, erik quanstrom 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 wrote:
>> > Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
>> > high-latency links dramatically.
>>
>> not
On Thu Sep 8 19:31:19 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas 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.
iirc, async
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 be
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas 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
Just asynchronous TClunk is enough to improve 9P's performance over
high-latency links dramatically.
-- vs
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
On 9 September 2011 06:43, Francisco J Ballesteros 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 channels 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 prot
> 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 t
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:14:47 PDT John Floren wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bakul Shah 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 multiple read/write requests o
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:56:10 PDT John Floren wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom wrot=
>> e:
>> >> > On Thursday 08 of September 2011 14:54:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
>> >> > > On Thu Sep =A08 04:52:08 EDT 2011, 23h...@goog
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:56:10 PDT John Floren wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom 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
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:18:16 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, ron minnich
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren
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, exa
> > 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, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren 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 singl
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, John Floren 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
> investigations
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM, erik quanstrom 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 exampl
> > 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
> > >
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:04 AM, dexen deVries 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 example of how to d
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 R
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 sin
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 outstanding request
> is much slower for getting files.
there, fixed
why do you want this??
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 in
> 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 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 req
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.
31 matches
Mail list logo
