From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs
From: anothy@cosym.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20020319162308.B652419A33@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:18:38 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 69ffb28e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

depends what you mean by "as good as". if functions much the same
way, and you can indeed point plan 9 terminals at a u9fs server as
their file server, but in my experience (using it on various Solaris/SPARC
systems) the performance is far inferior to that of a real plan9 file server,
even on modest hardware. i'd also suggest that the "real" fs is likely to
be substantially more stable, as well.
ア