From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p vs http
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:44:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYpajcVoFPVVRGnWqVaaO8vH4y7NGnCc+UAh7k@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101115032531.GB27578@opal.ai.ki>
You're way off about the merits of pipelining.
As far as parallel requests are concerned,
the 9P protocol beats HTTP hands down
(as does basically any other request
response protocol), because it has explicit
unique IDs on the requests and responses.
That allows a server to respond to two
requests in an order different than their
arrival order. If you send an expensive
HTTP request followed by a cheap one,
the server can't tell you the cheap answer
until it has told you the expensive answer.
The word "pipelining" means "we forgot to
put request and response IDs into the protocol
so we kludged it in by requiring responses to
happen in the same order as requests."
If a protocol says it has pipelining, that's
always a bad sign.
Russ
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-15 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-15 3:25 Sam Watkins
2010-11-15 4:20 ` John Floren
2010-11-15 4:26 ` Bruce Ellis
2010-11-15 5:16 ` Sam Watkins
2010-11-15 5:26 ` John Floren
2010-11-15 14:09 ` Gorka Guardiola
2010-11-15 14:15 ` Gorka Guardiola
2010-11-15 15:37 ` roger peppe
2010-11-15 16:45 ` C H Forsyth
2010-11-15 16:37 ` roger peppe
2010-11-15 16:48 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-15 17:02 ` roger peppe
2010-11-15 19:29 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-15 21:38 ` roger peppe
2010-11-16 1:18 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 12:12 ` roger peppe
2010-11-16 15:56 ` Charles Forsyth
2010-11-16 16:04 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 16:32 ` Charles Forsyth
2010-11-16 17:11 ` roger peppe
2010-11-15 15:44 ` David Leimbach
2010-11-15 15:55 ` Venkatesh Srinivas
2010-11-15 15:57 ` David Leimbach
2010-11-15 18:44 ` Russ Cox [this message]
2010-11-15 19:00 ` Dan Adkins
2010-11-15 22:18 ` Yaroslav
2010-11-15 22:34 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 12:42 ` Russ Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AANLkTimYpajcVoFPVVRGnWqVaaO8vH4y7NGnCc+UAh7k@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rsc@swtch.com \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).