From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <7256bf2df02af553e48028e5332340bf@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-xkhpqjmikhyadsnwbdzqyvkkjg" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:14:00 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 520f4148-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-xkhpqjmikhyadsnwbdzqyvkkjg Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was under the impression that Dong and I had fixed the TCP problems LANL was having. Is this incorrect? Could you tell me what's still slow? I really do want our IP stack to stay competative. Our next move is to take advantage of the hardware checksuming on the gigabit boards since, in our most recent testing, we seem to differ from BSD speeds most because of that. --upas-xkhpqjmikhyadsnwbdzqyvkkjg Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Thu Feb 6 13:08:23 EST 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Thu Feb 6 13:08:21 EST 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.16.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 01FD119A25; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:08:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from mailrelay2.lanl.gov (mailrelay2.lanl.gov [128.165.4.103]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 5A27619A04 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ccs.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay2.lanl.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3/(ccn-5)) with SMTP id h16I7Dgp002212 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 Received: (qmail 11573 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 Received: from unknown (HELO carotid.ccs.lanl.gov) (128.165.148.162) by 128.165.148.1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 Received: (qmail 11779 invoked by uid 3499); 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" X-X-Sender: rminnich@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 (MST) On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam wrote: > I just don't understand what you conceive as "slow." Well, on Pink, a 1024-node cluster we just built here, I can fire up a command to 1024 nodes from start to completion in < 4 seconds, and we consider that slow. Lest you think this a worthless benchmark I can tell you that startup overhead matters when scaling to this size system. My hunch is that Plan 9 would not start up quite this fast. But that is only based on very limited experience with 'cpu'. But you are correct in that I am not being specific. Sadly, my impressions are based on work done here last summer measuring TCP etc., and Andrey knows way better than I what the outcome of that was. However that doesn't much matter; what I'm taking from this discussion is that most Plan 9 users, who are developers not end-users, are satisfied with the performance of the system as is and see no need to try to make it competitive with the *nux* breeds. Given the overall far better quality of Plan 9 as an OS I find that understandable. That said, I did think David Butler's remarks were pretty interesting. Thanks ron p.s. What I really want to know: is Google going to run Plan 9 :-) --upas-xkhpqjmikhyadsnwbdzqyvkkjg--