From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:34:22 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <418789bb5bc4501ab70366014c15b965@lilly.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <536D0D14-3391-426A-930F-2B92FFD734DB@9srv.net> References: <7f11f16bfdb01c0041b0397a1cea04c5@proxima.alt.za> <7dc7cfb35a012dedc41828d03d5cdff3@lilly.quanstro.net> <4CB999B4-E9C6-4A74-B849-4003DD3D23D1@9srv.net> <22d498b89c3b4d2e50c1c5cc0e9d72c0@lilly.quanstro.net> <536D0D14-3391-426A-930F-2B92FFD734DB@9srv.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: 2dbb8e56-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu Nov 20 13:44:04 EST 2014, a@9srv.net wrote: > Both. I agree with what you're saying about the computers, but I was thinking of the fact that the wire speed is fast enough in most cases that the tcp/ip overhead doesn't impact things noticeably for most uses. There are outliers in both cases, of course. this is not correct. tcp doesn't help at all when the wire is fast (short, fat). it's the classic tradeoff of cpu for (networking) performance. the wire being fast enough is an argument against using tcp, not for it. so really, it's the gobs of cpu we currently have that make tcp not an issue, not the gobs of bandwidth. - erik