From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:34:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bfa231bf9b5b9b45e66d9bd2ed85571a@quanstro.net>
On 9/1/06, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > I know that's not an argument in favour of il,
> > but there ain't anything else is there?
>
> without doing a survey, linux has added three new ip protocols since the beginning of the
> year. dccp, sctp and tipc. the only one that is smaller than tcp is dccp and it doesn't
> provide for retransmission. (it's intended for streaming content, i believe.)
>
> linux 2.6.17
> proto ip4 linecount features
> udp 1594
> tcp 14628
>
> dccp 8224 congestion controlled, unreliable
> sctp 29139 reliable, mtu-aware, in-order + packet bundling, multipath
> tipc 18175 "transparent" ipc.
>
> oh, for comparison's sake
>
> cpu kernel:
> udp 647
> il 1408
> tcp 3177
>
> - erik
>
So what's the performance of il vs tcp like on Plan 9? Is it because
TCP could be done better? Also what are the chances of adding TCP to
the FS kernel?
I just don't see that il support in linux is as likely to be
supportable as adding TCP to our more controlled code base.
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-01 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-28 15:56 erik quanstrom
2006-08-28 16:32 ` Sergey Zhilkin
2006-08-28 16:43 ` erik quanstrom
2006-08-28 16:56 ` Sergey Zhilkin
2006-08-28 17:12 ` erik quanstrom
2006-08-28 17:31 ` geoff
2006-08-28 17:51 ` erik quanstrom
2006-08-29 4:56 ` lucio
2006-08-29 14:37 ` Brantley Coile
2006-08-29 17:05 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2006-08-29 19:49 ` erik quanstrom
2006-08-29 20:14 ` David Leimbach
2006-08-29 22:07 ` erik quanstrom
2006-08-29 20:43 ` jmk
2006-08-29 22:29 ` Brantley Coile
2006-08-29 23:15 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2006-08-31 11:15 ` Dave Lukes
2006-09-01 16:14 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-01 16:34 ` David Leimbach [this message]
2006-09-01 16:41 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-01 17:16 ` David Leimbach
2006-09-25 23:17 ` Christopher Nielsen
2006-09-25 23:56 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-26 8:12 ` Martin Neubauer
2006-09-26 11:44 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-26 13:53 ` Artem Letko
2006-09-26 15:14 ` Charles Forsyth
2006-09-26 17:18 ` Russ Cox
2006-09-26 17:42 ` Brantley Coile
2006-09-26 18:05 ` jmk
2006-09-26 20:31 ` geoff
2006-09-28 3:33 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-27 1:08 ` Christopher Nielsen
2006-09-28 3:28 ` erik quanstrom
2006-09-26 10:21 ` Re: " Sergey Zhilkin
2006-08-29 20:38 ` geoff
2006-08-29 22:27 ` Brantley Coile
2006-08-29 4:53 ` lucio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com \
--to=leimy2k@gmail.com \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).