From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]) by ewsd; Wed May 13 04:27:11 EDT 2020 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1F74F74B for <9front@9front.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:26:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; s=sasl; bh=WeTX62lF/e/t3P/wAlYhQO1m/tI=; b=M03j42uK6ixwXm98j2ZjSDBy9vtk hiNjIIj4OkbvWPBv8vkgfozo/pOmcZn4w12M3ow/scEUzfhS0h97yerJ3OqM3/gO 9q1+ae4l6dymHZNmR0Je6h8B9T1ADmkjnMK6yE3e470CiCEbsMPdc8e+GgDIAM5R ldreAc+zp9xE9v8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328B44F74A for <9front@9front.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:26:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Received: from [10.0.1.31] (unknown [137.25.138.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F8CB4F747 for <9front@9front.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:26:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 08:26:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <2DE413B1-B05D-45EF-A08A-6F9F119FB745@cpan.org> <436A949A-4A55-4F46-936B-F369038CCB47@cpan.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 9P2000.s vs 9P2020 vs. ? (Was Re: [9front] Slow cp, support for 9P2000.s) To: 9front@9front.org From: Romano Message-ID: <133678F3-1EA1-446D-9313-F10F23C84936@cpan.org> X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 81CF76E6-94F3-11EA-B916-D1361DBA3BAF-09620299!pb-smtp2.pobox.com List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: enhancement XML rails-based out-scaling-oriented generator Since there's no existing discussion I can see, and IRC isn't meant for sea= rching for answers to questions, is there anyone willing to summarize the s= tate of solving problems like streaming for 9P? If Aiju remembers correctly, there were two things where 9P2000=2Es was fo= und wanting: 1) it breaks the syscall interface; and 2) it forces 9P to run over TCP=2E FWIW, I finally finished reading through all of John's thesis, rather than= just skimming, and I think John did a nice review of the previous work don= e in this area and presenting why he chose the solution he did=2E His solu= tion used TCP, but from his write-up, I don't see a technical reason why an= other transport protocol[1] could not be used=2E That would leave only brea= king the syscall interface=2E Does breaking the syscall interface mean that it's merely adding a syscall= ? Or does it mean something else? Right now hget(1) is an rc script that uses webfs(4)=2E So if I'm at a te= rminal far away and am using webfs provided by the server I'm connected to,= hget would be slow for a large file because the file would be transferred = over 9P=2E It's no better than Plan 9's implementation, but no worse either= =2E [1] https://en=2Ewikipedia=2Eorg/wiki/Category:Transport_layer_protocols