Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:Not just long latency. If you have a low latency link which is very busy, perhaps a client doing lots of requests, or doing other things, that pushes up the _effective_ latency. I think that's a fine choice, but it doesn't solve difficult problems. You still have to implement the server cloud. :-) It's possible that implementing server cloud protocol _and_ simple client protocol may be more work than just server cloud protocol. I'm not sure. Thoughts welcome. -- Jamie --
| Ryan Hope | reiser4 for 2.6.27-rc1 |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 |
| Tejun Heo | [PATCHSET] CUSE: implement CUSE |
| Peter Zijlstra | Re: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 (BUG: sched_rt) |
git: | |
| Shawn O. Pearce | Re: [PATCH/POLL] git-format-patch: the default suffix is now .patch, not .txt |
| Jakub Narebski | Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) |
| Junio C Hamano | Maintaining "needswork" section of "What's (not) cooking" |
| Matthias Lederhofer | [PATCH] prune-packed: new option --min-age=N |
| Theo de Raadt | That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing |
| Karthik Kumar | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| Khalid Schofield | Configuring sendmail openbsd 4.2 |
| Ray Percival | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| RW | Re: forcefsck on booting stage |
| Vladimir Terziev | Video memory as swap under FreeBSD |
| Ivan Voras | Progress for 7.0 - the "what's cooking" page |
| Pietro Cerutti | Re: [patch] enhance powerd(8) to handle max temperature |
