Re: [9fans] 9P optimization

["Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

rangbooming has lead to extreme optimiazations.  i'll let skip
comment on it (he's asleep i guess).  but i couldn't have much
worse RTT (sydney-seattle), and the traffic seems a lot lower now,
and the latency has improved extraordinarily.

brucee

On 6/24/07, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> > The problem with cfs is that you still suffer the RPC to check for validity.
> > With 100ms of RTT, count 5 and you have a second. Also, for synthesized
> > files,
> > the cache does not save you from doing a walk, open, read.
>
> I'll be accused of being a heretic, but let me claim that much of the
> design of IMAP is geared towards avoiding those RTTs for that very reason.
> A good IMAP client wins by doing intelligent cacheing, and it gets there
> by using the subtle aspects of the protocol that accomodate that.
>
> Much as people slag the protocol, it does work well over slow (high
> latency) links, given a client that understands the protocol (sadly, most
> don't).
>
> I'm very curious about the efficiency of cfs, but my P9 environment
> doesn't have a remote terminal.  It would be interesting to instrument cfs
> and collect some stats on the protocol behaviour behind the cache ...
>
> --lyndon
>