From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <140e7ec30809180257y34722805y287fd9838bd76f35@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:57:21 +0800
From: sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p over high-latency
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 11bb6cee-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> 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...
-sqweek