From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40706232004t38102644r7d5dd145ee15d026@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 05:04:31 +0200
From: "Francisco J Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P optimization
In-Reply-To: <20070623174825.A31325@orthanc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070623043028.A0A7C1E8C51@holo.morphisms.net>
	<20070623174825.A31325@orthanc.ca>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 864b3fa0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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.

That sayd, I don't think a change in 9p is needed. Translating to
another protocol for low links
suffices.

On 6/24/07, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> Before we think about turning 9P into NFSv4, it would be useful to examine
> the current use of cfs, and collect some stats on how effective it is.
>