From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:45:59 +0100 From: Uriel To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: some Plan9 related ideas Message-ID: <20051017124559.GB29494@server4.lensbuddy.com> References: <19450.1125421653@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> <600308d60508301033589f9f55@mail.gmail.com> <20051017071433.GA29494@server4.lensbuddy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9b31803e-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:23:39AM -0400, Russ Cox wrote: > > I was reading old archives, and I'm probably a bit dense; but what is > > the reason to use the same tag for the three messages? > > The reason is you don't have to wait for the response to the first > before sending the second and third, avoiding two round trip times. Yes, but what I didn't understand is why you needed to use the same tag, I thought you could do this without chaning the protocol. After some discussion in #plan9 we guessed that the reason is threaded servers... Could you explain with more detail how it would work from the (threaded) server POV? I was thinking that the server could use the fid to avoid threads stepping into each other, and still avoid having to change the protocol at all... And I'm still curious what kernel changes nemo was talking about. Sorry for being dense uriel