From 89e1865f78c236b5137c3504fc4f465149bafe3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jean-Paul Calderone Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:27:58 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Forget about runtime performance --- docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst b/docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst index 83b6823e7..ad9dd30bc 100644 --- a/docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst +++ b/docs/proposed/http-storage-node-protocol.rst @@ -38,11 +38,7 @@ Tahoe-LAFS pays a substantial price: The implementation is therefore the de facto standard and understanding of the protocol often relies on understanding that implementation. * The Foolscap developer community is very small. The implementation therefore advances very little and some non-trivial part of the maintenance cost falls on the Tahoe-LAFS project. -* The extensible serialization system imposes substantial overhead for the simple data structures Tahoe-LAFS exchanges. -* Foolscap encourages a "remote object" style of protocol design with involves many client-server interactions. - However, Foolscap does not implement "promise pipelining". - The result is that Foolscap encourages a protocol that requires many round-trips between client and server. -* The serialization overhead combined with the many round-trips result in Tahoe-LAFS presenting a more sluggish experience to users and taxes servers more greatly than is necessary. +* The extensible serialization system imposes substantial complexity compared to the simple data structures Tahoe-LAFS actually exchanges. HTTP ~~~~