From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5fa9fbfe115a9cd5a81d0feefe413192@quintile.net> From: "Steve Simon" Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:19 +0100 To: 9fans@9fans.net In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] A simple experiment Topicbox-Message-UUID: 106e68a8-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Ok, I admit its a trivial experiment but: > fcp is still a 9p conversation. http get is a tcp stream. Fcp is > better than cp but not that much better. > If you're yanking one file, a TCP stream is pretty ideal. Dropping 9p > on top of it, even when the 9p involves multiple TREADs > in flight, is just making things slower. larch% time cp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null 0.02u 0.52s 647.90r cp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null larch% time fcp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null 0.01u 0.85s 49.69r fcp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null larch% time hget http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 > /dev/null 0.37u 0.54s 32.84r hget http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 Mmm, HTTP does give better performance, but its not that extreme, and for a nightly cron script I would not worry about it. I admit I am surprised by how much a difference there is, it should be just Tread and Rread headers shouldn't it? -Steve