From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:14:40 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <2af392fc1af25720837a52fd46e77910@lilly.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <860f46440130d9d7aa8b1fd2a452218a@lilly.quanstro.net>
References: <7f11f16bfdb01c0041b0397a1cea04c5@proxima.alt.za>
	<7dc7cfb35a012dedc41828d03d5cdff3@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<CAEAzY39_rz4h3D_NcGQwuELUh0UYvmf1+Oo0HmRVAHbDyx4qyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB999B4-E9C6-4A74-B849-4003DD3D23D1@9srv.net>
	<22d498b89c3b4d2e50c1c5cc0e9d72c0@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<536D0D14-3391-426A-930F-2B92FFD734DB@9srv.net>
	<418789bb5bc4501ab70366014c15b965@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<0841E3F3-400C-4E19-811F-37B0595006BD@bitblocks.com>
	<4a5f7359099c5bdfc05c341e19f17490@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<20141125065952.60E7EB82A@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<860f46440130d9d7aa8b1fd2a452218a@lilly.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] running plan9 : an ideal setup?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2e276856-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > I haven't looked into why on the RPi plan9's tcp performance
> > is about 30-40% of that on linux (which works near wire speed).
> > For the local case it doesn't matter much in any case.
>
> (a) allocb() relies on deathly slow malloc; cf. qallocb in 9atom, which upps performance quite a bit
> (b) usb is not as fast,
> (c) send and recieve in plan 9's tcp are not as decoupled as they could be,
> this leads to latency in sending after the window opens, or latency in opening
> the window.

we did get a lot of performance out of a proper NewReno implentation, which
happened after the original rpi port.

a review of changes in sources from the original work didn't turn up any noteworthy
changes, but then again just reviewing the source code isn't all that effective.  :-)

- erik