Re: [9fans] About 9P ...

["Francisco J Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>]

Yes, but latency from Madrid to Greece is 150ms (rtt, icmp) and that
I'd say is going
to stay that way for a long time. To the US (east coast) it's 120ms.

I still like to use my system while in the move.

Regarding protocols, lbfs is nice, but focuses on bandwidth and so, it
requires multiple
RPCs for things that, for example, NFSv4, does in one or two.

On 6/23/07, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
> > 9P is just great for use when latency is reasonable (or not too bad,
> > with cfs), but to go further
> > away and still be comfortable using remote files, I'd say we need
> > another protocol.
> > I'd love to be proved wrong :)
>
> are there any protocols that deal well with latency?
>
> the only way i know to deal with latency is to do some
> sort of tagged queueing.  (perhaps i don't know enough
> computer history.)  unfortunately, this doesn't
> work if part of the data you need depend on some
> prior part; a conversation means ping-pong communication.
>
> the great news for 9p is that latency is decreasing.  in
> /sys/doc/net/net.ps, the IL/ether latency is listed as
> having a latency of 1420µs.  my home fileserver
> has a 57µs latency to my cpu server. (the fileserver is a
> pIII with a $19 rtl8169.)
>
> even custom Cyclone interface between the file server and
> the cpu server is listed as having a latency of 375µs.
>
> let's hope the same holds true for wireless networking.
>
> - erik
>