From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <0ca715132a1b587e5b6ed32c6b1f41f3@proxima.alt.za> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] killing processes From: Lucio De Re Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:24:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 88c57194-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I wonder, how many 9fans are *actually* using CPU servers? You and Ron both confirm my experience. The CPU server I have runs applications: e-mail, web, wiki, that type of thing. I can't use it to render Geotiffs as I have better resources (physical memory, CPU cycles, SWAP) in my workstation. I guess if I had homogenous hardware, I would allocate new resources where they are more beneficial (that's where the CPU server would consolidate the benefits of such resources), but the mish-mash of obsolete hardware I have accumulated just does not allow me to do so. Something in that picture is worrying, because the file server is still a focal point and centralising processing power ought to be analogous, but empirically, they seem to be poles apart. It seems to me that the authors of the early Plan 9 papers would arrive to very different pictures if they were to consider our conditions vis-a-vis computing resources and telecommunication channels. In particular, the 100MHz Cyclone connection between CPU server and file server always suggests a reality check to me. ++L