9front - general discussion about 9front
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: arisawa <arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] State of the 9front mailing list archives
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 06:35:30 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <92DCC772-99B8-4FF3-B435-195736BACD1B@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6c3ed64e027cc6c68c4fd9110616c5e@meiling.znet>

Hello,

this is my case
term% time ls -l /n/lists/9fans >/tmp/foo
0.35u 0.08s 405.16r 	 ls -l /n/lists/9fans
term% 

I have been considering this type of problems: large data in server.
grid computing might be the only solution.

Kenji Arisawa

> 2016/06/04 15:31、BurnZeZ@feline.systems のメール:
> 
> 
> On Fri Jun  3 14:46:01 EDT 2016, sl@stanleylieber.com wrote:
>> In my previous mail I was responding more to the same discussion that gets held over and over on IRC by the same people about how accessing the mailing list archive is awkward and slow.
> 
> That's expected with latency and any protocol that requires a lot of back and forth.
> 
> 
> meiling% 9fs 9front >[2]/dev/null
> meiling% time ls -l /n/9front/lists/9fans >/tmp/foo
> 0.90u 0.08s 120.38r 	 ls -l /n/9front/lists/9fans
> meiling% wc -l /tmp/foo
>  93845 /tmp/foo
> meiling% echo 93845 / 120.38 | hoc
> 779.573018774 # files per second
> 
> meiling% ip/ping -n 5 9front.org
> sending 5 64 byte messages 1000 ms apart to icmp!9front.org!1
> 0: rtt 49053 µs, avg rtt 49053 µs, ttl = 245
> 1: rtt 47224 µs, avg rtt 48138 µs, ttl = 245
> 2: rtt 47660 µs, avg rtt 47979 µs, ttl = 245
> 3: rtt 47340 µs, avg rtt 47819 µs, ttl = 245
> 4: rtt 47084 µs, avg rtt 47672 µs, ttl = 245
> meiling% echo 120.38 / 0.04672 | hoc
> 2576.62671233 # number of possible round trips
> meiling% echo 93845 / 2576 | hoc
> 36.4305124224 # estimated files per round trip
> 
> # /tmp/cache is an arbitrary directory I store some crap
> meiling% time ls -l /tmp/cache >/tmp/bar
> 0.07u 0.01s 0.09r 	 ls -l /tmp/cache
> meiling% wc -l /tmp/bar
>   6161 /tmp/bar
> meiling% echo 6161 / 0.09  | hoc
> 68455.5555556 # files per second, locally
> 
> 
> This assumes we send and receive messages, one at a time.
> It's better than I thought, but I suppose it doesn't scale well to
> directories with hundreds of thousands of files, or a higher
> latency link.
> 
> What about increasing the speed of light?



  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-04 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-03 18:23 stanley lieber
2016-06-03 18:29 ` [9front] " cinap_lenrek
2016-06-03 18:45   ` stanley lieber
2016-06-03 20:27     ` cinap_lenrek
2016-06-04  6:31     ` BurnZeZ
2016-06-04 14:54       ` Benjamin Purcell
2016-06-04 21:35       ` arisawa [this message]
2016-06-03 18:51 ` Kurt H Maier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=92DCC772-99B8-4FF3-B435-195736BACD1B@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp \
    --to=arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp \
    --cc=9front@9front.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).