From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:13:32 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <d9d43a1aa634a5ef999566df7a7db0e7@plug.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFvDW4DUkFhP-2ffR1EXaJKzcVf8xnjWE4oQtC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimvaNcf3hC8gPAXrFDDs3CKH2ZVa4siS_ihCQvx@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikCoXwEp=d6D4uCsU1pOBr=N-rFQARBPj7p_Qb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimZS1jvvGrtzxZhS=iM4rkje1t=PbYL-rCN1cEO@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinmSbZkCUE874O82Dt=gJaooET+s3_XVyZ_w82_@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin3O=va2Msv+3r96PKQjrSQqX5EuReh8k9PRdfC@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=yCrhS3byca+R3b3-srOrdAHe7UQtVWHkvLJ-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<cd070e8e56994d301a7af213b53f031d@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTikFvDW4DUkFhP-2ffR1EXaJKzcVf8xnjWE4oQtC@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?b?z4Bw?=
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 67acf5b2-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Oct 15 17:14:18 EDT 2010, bumbudorin@gmail.com wrote:
> 2010/10/15 erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
> >> isn't tag field for this intended?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> so this means to me that a client can send some T-messages and then
> >> (or concurrently) wait the R-messages.
> >> in inferno from mount(1) and styxmon(8) i deduced that this case is
> >> also considered.
> >> it's true that most of the servers i seen until now doesn't take
> >> advantage of this feature, they respond to each T-message before
> >> processing next message.
> >
> > there is no defined limit to the number of
> > outstanding tags allowed. [...]
>
> so the real problem is not 9p itself than the transport protocol: TCP/IP.

the transport has nothing to do with it;

> i think that a solution might be to run 9p over an information
> dispersal based protocol, to eliminate roundtrips but guaranteeing
> reliability.

the definitiion of 9p relies on having round trips.

- erik