Re: [9fans] πp

[cinap_lenrek@gmx.de]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20 bytes --]

fork!

--
cinap

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 6033 bytes --]

From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] πp
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:31:47 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimO00vOzdEeX9fKAAd6QZ4Z-68ieJSLhaYSA0WE@mail.gmail.com>

What if the data your process needs is located on more than one
server? Play ping-pong?

Thanks,
    Lucho

2010/10/15  <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de>:
> i wonder if making 9p work better over high latency connections is
> even the right answer to the problem.  the real problem is that the
> data your program wants to work on in miles away from you and
> transfering it all will suck.  would it not be cool to have a way to
> teleport/migrate your process to a cpu server close to the data?
>
> i know, this is a crazy blue sky idea that has lots of problems on its
> own...  but it poped up again when i read the "bring the computation
> to the data" point from the ospray talk.
>
> --
> cinap
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:59:02 +0200
> Subject: Re: [9fans] πp
> It's not just that you can stream requests or not.
> If you have caches in the path to the server, you'd like to batch together (or
> stream or whatever you'd like to call that) requests so that if a client is
> reading a file and a single rpc suffices, the cache, in the worst case, knows
> that it has to issue a single rpc to the server.
>
> Somehow, you need to group requests to retain the idea that a bunch of
> requests have some meaning as a whole.
>
> 2010/10/15 David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> 2010/10/14 Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
>>>
>>> It can't be dealt with the current protocol. It doesn't guarantee that
>>> Topen will be executed once Twalk is done. So can get Rerrors even if
>>> Twalk succeeds.
>>>
>>
>> It can be dealt with if the scheduling of the pipeline is done properly.
>>  You just have to eliminate the dependencies.
>> I can imagine having a few concurrent queues of "requests" in a client that
>> contain items with dependencies, and running those queues in a pipelined way
>> against a 9P server.
>>
>>>
>>> 2010/10/13 Venkatesh Srinivas <me@acm.jhu.edu>:
>>> >> 2) you can't pipeline requests if the result of one request depends on
>>> >> the
>>> >> result of a previous. for instance: walk to file, open it, read it,
>>> >> close
>>> >> it.
>>> >> if the first operation fails, then subsequent operations will be
>>> >> invalid.
>>> >
>>> > Given careful allocation of FIDs by a client, that can be dealt with -
>>> > operations on an invalid FID just get RErrors.
>>> >
>>> > -- vs
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
>