From: rick.jones2@hp.com   
      
   Glen Herrmannsfeldt  wrote:   
   > Rick Jones wrote:   
   > > Glen Herrmannsfeldt  wrote:   
   > >>With TCP, if one packet is lost you won't get any data sent after   
   > >>that until it is retransmitted after the sender receives the NAK.   
      
   > > Don't you mean "no data past that which is lost will be   
   > > _delivered_ to the receiving application until after the lost data   
   > > is retransmitted?"   
      
   > Yes.  The "you" was the person on the receiving end.  It won't get   
   > to the person until it gets to the receiving application.   
      
   The joys of ambiguity in English and where the pause and emphasis goes   
   :)   
      
      
   > Thinking about independent data packets, it would seem that UDP   
   > should be best for NFS, yet later versions have converted to TCP.   
   > Assuming an NFS client with multiple users all making requests of   
   > the same server, it would seem that the serialization required by   
   > TCP would not be appropriate.   
      
   I haven't been following NFS all that closely for a while, but I'm   
   told that clients can now establish multiple concurrent TCP   
   connections to a server even for a single mount point.  Doesn't fully   
   solve the serialization but probably works around it well enough.   
      
   rick jones   
   --   
   I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of   
   "when," sometimes "where;" always "how much."  - Joubert   
   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)   
   feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)