From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tristan Plumb <9p-st@imu.li> To: 9fans@9fans.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <2578ef.bc4a5249.rnnX.mx@tumtum.plumbweb.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20110817210038.66E0CB827@mail.bitblocks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:47:17 -0400 User-Agent: mx-alpha Subject: Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1424bef6-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p > > > operation? (I have 100Mbit). > > > > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more > > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be > > 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on > > 100Mbps link for large files. [John, what was the link speed > > for the tests in your thesis?] > i calculate 1/0.080s/rt * 64*1024 = 819 kbytes/s. (i think your > conversion from mbits/s to bytes/s is faulty.) 819 kbyte/s just about than 6.55 Mbps, at 8 bits a byte. and 64*1024/0.08 * 8 = 6553600 or are you talking about something else entirely? tristan -- All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.