From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <40cf59cfc2735e232f0fd67df725e65d@kw.quanstro.net> References: <5fa9fbfe115a9cd5a81d0feefe413192@quintile.net> <4fa1305e0f56a0ef89c2e05320fa5997@coraid.com> <40cf59cfc2735e232f0fd67df725e65d@kw.quanstro.net> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:06:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd755043d49230485617889 Subject: Re: [9fans] A simple experiment Topicbox-Message-UUID: 126ac30e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cd755043d49230485617889 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > But then I start to wonder why we feel we want to compete with HTTP when > it > > already works, and is still fairly simple. Nothing wrong with improving > 9P > > I suppose, but what's so wrong with HTTP transfers that it warrants > changing > > our beloved resource sharing protocol? Maybe I'm being too practical, > and > > not feeling adventurous or something :-) > > do we put a http bag on the side of every /n/remoteslowlink > fileserver, since 9p can't take care of it's own business? > > - erik > > It's not quite fair to say 9P *can't* take care of it. The question is "does it take care of it well enough?". I guess my point is we can change 9P to suit every purpose under the sun if we want, but then does it still have all the nice simple, properties of 9P? Wasn't IL somewhat abandoned because to make it as good as TCP you basically had to implement TCP anyway? I'm totally undecided on this, but just asking the question to make sure everyone feels good about adding streaming to 9P, which seems to indicate a need to add flow control as well. Dave --000e0cd755043d49230485617889 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, erik qu= anstrom <quan= stro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> But then I start to wonder why we feel we want to co= mpete with HTTP when it
> already works, and is still fairly simple. =A0Nothing wrong with impro= ving 9P
> I suppose, but what's so wrong with HTTP transfers that it warrant= s changing
> our beloved resource sharing protocol? =A0Maybe I'm being too prac= tical, and
> not feeling adventurous or something :-)

do we put a http bag on the side of every /n/remoteslowlink
fileserver, since 9p can't take care of it's own business?

- erik

It's not quite fair to say 9P *can't* tak= e care of it. =A0The question is "does it take care of it well enough?= ".

I guess my point is we can change 9P to suit eve= ry purpose under the sun if we want, but then does it still have all the ni= ce simple, properties of 9P? =A0Wasn't IL somewhat abandoned because to= make it as good as TCP you basically had to implement TCP anyway?

I'm totally undecided on this, but just asking the = question to make sure everyone feels good about adding streaming to 9P, whi= ch seems to indicate a need to add flow control as well.

Dave
--000e0cd755043d49230485617889--