From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri,  1 Sep 2006 09:34:34 -0700
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
In-Reply-To: <bfa231bf9b5b9b45e66d9bd2ed85571a@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44F6C4DD.8040704@anvil.com>
	<bfa231bf9b5b9b45e66d9bd2ed85571a@quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: adc6b452-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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