From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <95FD9082-DC2A-44F9-BB4C-B221DB7A48FD@fastmail.fm> From: Ethan Grammatikidis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <5fa9fbfe115a9cd5a81d0feefe413192@quintile.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:18:27 +0100 References: <5fa9fbfe115a9cd5a81d0feefe413192@quintile.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] A simple experiment Topicbox-Message-UUID: 10917e56-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 28 Apr 2010, at 12:51, Steve Simon wrote: > Ok, I admit its a trivial experiment but: > >> fcp is still a 9p conversation. http get is a tcp stream. Fcp is >> better than cp but not that much better. > >> If you're yanking one file, a TCP stream is pretty ideal. Dropping 9p >> on top of it, even when the 9p involves multiple TREADs >> in flight, is just making things slower. > > larch% time cp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null > 0.02u 0.52s 647.90r cp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null > > larch% time fcp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null > 0.01u 0.85s 49.69r fcp /n/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 /dev/null > > larch% time hget http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 > > /dev/null > 0.37u 0.54s 32.84r hget http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/extra/plan9.tar.bz2 > > Mmm, HTTP does give better performance, but its not that extreme, > and for a nightly cron script I would not worry about it. > I admit I am surprised by how much a difference there is, it should > be just Tread and Rread headers shouldn't it? Could round-trip times be adding up? Does 9p do one file at once strictly? > > -Steve > -- Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis