Thread View: comp.protocols.misc
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by Stephen Tihor
Tue, 01 Aug 1989 01:46
RE: A comparison of Commercial RPC Systems
Author: Stephen Tihor
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1989 01:46
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1989 01:46
24 lines
1659 bytes
1659 bytes
If ywe are talking real world you bet your business sorts of issues then protocols must not fail in WORST practical case. From observations of events in the Internet I assert that to the extent taht the SUN internal network convinces you that 8K UCP barrages are reasonable it is not a good model for much of the Internet. It would have been straightforwards to design simple feedback loops with a hysterisis parameter to avoid the known network problems or too direct a feedback loop into such protocols as the NFS packet size/multi packet code or RWHO. Networking protocols should BE DESIGNED NOT TO FAIL IN THE GENERAL CASE. Protocol designs have to be PESIMISTIC because you can not insure that the world is a simple catenet of ethernets with moderately compatible machines on them. Degrade performance if you can't figure out how to autotune down but don't just fail anmd require an end user to solve an internetwork level problem. The more widely used a protocol is intended to be the better it should be at handling bad enviornments. [I did not find the original explaination for using UDP o instead of TCP for NFS RPC to be very convincing once SUN started pushing NFS as a standard for remote files systems. -------
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads