From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:35:58 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <b97f209d2615f22f4a0002559938bf6c@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60904201118u18e8846bkbfec62e561a15a91@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5d375e920904200758m1a1a96den579673e107b57b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<7c22175ab60f8a5ae2cf894d462b29e5@9netics.com>
	<3e1162e60904201118u18e8846bkbfec62e561a15a91@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years
Topicbox-Message-UUID: eb44323e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I thought 9p had tagged requests so you could put many requests in flight at
> once, then synchronize on them when the server replied.
>
> Maybe i misunderstand the application of the tag field in the protocol then?
>
> Tread tag fid offset count
>
> Rread tag count data

without having the benefit of reading ken's thoughts ...

you can have 1 fd being read by 2 procs at the same time.
the only way to do this is by having multiple outstanding tags.

i think the complaint about 9p boils down to ordering.
if i want to do something like
	cd /sys/src/9/pc/ ; cat sdata.c
that's a bunch of walks and then an open and then a read.
these are done serially, and each one takes 1rtt.

- erik