From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] on TCP vs IL In-Reply-To: Message from "Russ Cox" of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:07:41 EST." <20011121010744.C4DBB19A46@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <9452.1006305710@apnic.net> From: George Michaelson Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:21:50 +1000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2674831e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > It's not radically different. Think TCP without worrying about > congestion in any way, shape, or form. For RPC over an ethernet > that isn't overused, the claim is that these are unnecessary > because RPCs are inherently flow controlled. That reads like a claim which is worth betting against in deployment. Like, deploy Plan9 in a dealing room with millions of packets and suddenly maybe the 'ethernet which isn't overused' is not so clear. Or, have to share media with live 40Mbit HDTV steams. Saying RPC are inherently flow controlled also implies inherently single- threaded RPC models, no parallelism in the procedure call layer for a given binding sounds like an awfully big assumption. Sure, that way lies madness but multiplexing does happen. re-assuring its essentially a TCPlike protocol. It would be interesting to see if it had the same end-to-end performance with less cost for a reliable transport. cheers -George (thanks for the docref btw) -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: ggm@apnic.net | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3367 0490 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3367 0482 | http://www.apnic.net