From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:50:54 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <263c72eb8fb54e742882b53d6183f71b@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <414BCD8C-1138-4A9E-AF40-D4022A2FA223@sun.com>
References: <263c72eb8fb54e742882b53d6183f71b@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] audio standards -- too many to choose from
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 438531c8-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:25 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> May be its better to call this latency, since we can all appreciate
>> some of the shortcomings that 9P has when it comes to it.
>
> i think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from a too-abstract
> view of the facts.

My ears begged to differ ;-)

> 9p is a ping-pong protocol.  this gives it *consistent* latency.
> this is good for audio.

I'm not sure either latency or RT is proper terminology here. But
I believe what I meant was clear: when you need overall latency
to be around 5ms you start to notice 9P.

> and if you're talking to a local kernel, it's the same, except
> there is no 9p.


Sure. And if you read my email to the very end I made a comment
of exactly the same nature.

Thanks,
Roman.