From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <200111202340.SAA18771@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux
In-Reply-To: <20011120220809.8D66B199E4@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:47 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25e34868-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <20011120220809.8D66B199E4@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write:
>OK, OK, here's why IL is deprecated:
>
>1.  It doesn't cope well with long networks (it hasn't
>had the chance to be tuned to the same degree as TCP).
>
>2.  It's a headache to maintain.
>
>3.  The new protocol (9P2000) doesn't depend on record
>boundaries being preserved; there is basically no dependence
>on IL in the new system other than the current fileserver
>implementation, which is about to be overhauled (RSN!).

Yes, but isn't il a lot more efficient on the wire than TCP,
particularly over mostly reliable local area networks?  TCP has a lot
of baggage to deal with high loss, high latency, networks with moderate
bandwidth at the expense of higher bandwidth, lower latency, low loss
networks; in other words, it doesn't cope well with short networks.  :-)

	- Dan C.