From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-ermzoobcxnegcsnknzronisztr"
Message-Id: <20011121145219.5E53D199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:52:17 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 26b4107e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-ermzoobcxnegcsnknzronisztr
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

server = PentiumII/Xeon 400
client = PentiumPro 199
network = 100 mbs ether

test =
	import {tcp|il}!olive / /tmp
	cd /tmp/386/bin; cat * > /dev/null

the remote fs protocol is 9P2000

I did a few runs to warm up the cache on the
server and 7 runs each for IL and TCP interleaved.
The timings came out just about the same for
Il and TCP, 29.17 and 29.38 secs respectively.
The difference was well within the error bars.


--upas-ermzoobcxnegcsnknzronisztr
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Tue Nov 20 18:41:49 EST 2001
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.20.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 04B4519A8A; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:41:38 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from math.psu.edu (leibniz.math.psu.edu [146.186.130.2])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 39CBC19A47
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2])
	by math.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21220
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Received: (from cross@localhost)
	by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA18771;
	Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200111202340.SAA18771@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux
Newsgroups: comp.os.plan9
In-Reply-To: <20011120220809.8D66B199E4@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Organization: Mememememememmeme
Cc:
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Help: <mailto:9fans-request@cse.psu.edu?subject=help>
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:40:47 -0500 (EST)

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.

--upas-ermzoobcxnegcsnknzronisztr--