Re: [9fans] reliability and failing over.

[Francisco Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>]

Funny, I admit.

We saw the problem when combining multiple user-level file servers
(not fossil, but device drivers for X10, guis, and the like) within
the same dir,
specially on wireless at home.
Issuing requests in parallel as Russ suggested will help, for sure,
but if things
dont get too bad, the simplest user-level file server will be a good option.

We just happen to have the kernel changed, because I wanted to be able to say
"no overhead, but for the unions", which required a kernel to measure.
That´s why
I was a considering the kernel changes besides the user level alternative. Guess
I have an opportunity to experiment with a few things now that it´s going to be
a user program :-)

On 9/10/05, Sape Mullender <sape@plan9.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > Beware of the latency.
> >
> > Plan B usage shows that latency is the biggest problem.
> 
> That's funny.  We've been working on a low-latency wireless comms protocol
> here at the Labs that we've called Plan B (our wireless emulator runs on Plan 9,
> of course), because we'd come to the conclusion that latency is the biggest problem
> in current cellular systems.
> 
>         Sape
> 
>