From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [9fans] About 9P ... From: Lucio De Re To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <7f6311b3aa8ba95b32892112e02878b4@coraid.com> References: <7f6311b3aa8ba95b32892112e02878b4@coraid.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:57:44 +0200 Message-Id: <1182603464.24170.62.camel@simple> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 86032ee0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 08:08 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > are there any protocols that deal well with latency? > IP does by design. The correct approach to the problem is the sliding-window technique and I can only presume that applications that suffer from high latency are written to conflict with the underlying protocols. I mean, we've had X-modem since the ark. I've tried to avoid becoming too familiar with 9P to be able to comment because my mind isn't as sharp as it was when I produced end-to-end protocols to run on 300 bps lines, but maybe somebody can explain to me whether 9P is one such ill-mannered application. From the immediately preceding discussion, it doesn't seem so, but I do not speak from a position of knowledge. ++L