Do you know if there has ever been a comprehensive evaluation of tuning parameters for 9P?  I am sure from my previous post that it is obvious I am on the newer side of Plan9 users.

I feel like part of it could be a configuration issue, that is to say specifying the gbe vs ether data type and setting -m to a 9k size.  Additionally, would it violate the 9P protocol if you chunked the data first (i.e. if you have a file with 256 kbytes and ran it over 4 connections with 64 kbytes each).  There is an overhead dx/dt that would consume the gains at some point but from a theoretical stand point is it possible?  Or more accurately, would such an approach violate 9p?

> celebrate_newfound_speed();
This is honestly phenomenal :)

>  switch (srv.proto) {
  case TCP:
  iosize = max(chan.rsize, chan.wsize);  
  init_9p_tcp(srv.addr, ver9p, iosize);
Again maybe this is ignorance but my understanding was that while Plan9 can support a lot of things running TCP (for the rest of the world) it supports and prefers to utilize IL/9P for such a connection.  TCP vis-a-vis re-transmission throttling is universally bad, so it might be a function more of TCP then of the Plan9 server.  I once had a dedicated 100G link between Dallas and Denver and it initially pre-tuned only had about 4G in bandwidth (yes, this is not a typo).  Some simple tuning (both Linux devices) got that up to 50G almost immediately.  But TCP was the transport of choice and we never got to the 100G level, there were just too many variables and getting close would knock the connection bandwidth way back.  We only had the link for a short time, so possibly this could have been worked out but my point is that really anything over 1G copper cables is non-trivial when TCP is involved.

~Joey
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te69bb0fce0f0ffaf-M06a2dd85933dbb4fe106607c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription