Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:52:35 +0200 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: XTP: A better TCP than TCP |
| |
On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 04:37:03PM -0400, Greg Lindahl wrote: > > As I understand it, the idea behind not requiring flow-control in IL > > was that the higher level protocols would take care of this; in 9P > > (which is the main user of IL), there's a reply to each request, so if > > the server is replying slowly, the client will slow down to compensate. > > NFS and CORBA don't have such a feature. And even if you *think* you > have such a feature, you may be surprised. In the example I gave (with > Legion and MPI), the server was simply being overrun with requests, > even though it replied to every one.
Actually, NFS v3 does - it returns the error NFS_JUKEBOX. Admittedly, this is to handle HSM situations, not flow control. NFS is not specified over IL in any case, so one could write a specification which described how flow control was to be performed. I don't see how NFS/IL is any worse than NFS/UDP, clients must implement their own flow control (or not at all) for this case too.
> Likewise, IL attempts to do a good job at being adaptive over a > WAN. But it's hard to believe that it's as good at it as TCP.
It's hard to know without any benchmarks. I don't have any, do you?
-- Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai> "Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |