From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d1cdb20b0244268d57ec627b80a6b95f@csplan9.rit.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Experiences with remote connections?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:27:20 -1000
From: john@csplan9.rit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20070616193156.327001E8C22@holo.morphisms.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7fdd390c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> ramfs seems to improve lc by about a second
>> or two. Still far from what I'd consider acceptable,
>> which is unfortunate; once a program is loaded,
>> it runs very nicely and responsively. Maybe it
>> would be more feasible simply to boot the terminal
>> from its own disk, then import my mailbox and
>> mount my fileserver to /n/csplan9 so I can access
>> my files.
>
> mc is accessing all sorts of odd files that i'd
> forgotten about (it reads files in /lib/font to
> figure out string widths to insert tabs correctly
> to make the columns line up).  try just comparing
> ls with and without the ramfs -- that should be
> more representative of what cfs can do.
>
> i've booted over a few hundred miles before
> and also over an early cable modem (28.8k up
> via phone line, 1M down via cable) and it was
> okay once cfs got going.  the real test is to make
> a cache partition and try cfs directly.
>
> russ

I set up a 200 MB partition for cfs; it seems to be helping
a bit. rio on the cpu server works okay too. I'll just have
to see which I end up using more.
Thanks!


John