Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux

[Skip Tavakkolian <skipt@real.com>]

To ask a rude question then, what was the original need or rationale for
inventing IL?

At 09:52 AM 11/21/2001 -0500, presotto@closedmind.org wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
>