From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnick" <vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Summary of Plan9 for jargon file
Message-ID: <20030207095058.A10318@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1030205135851.29852A-100000@robin.cooper.edu> <9bbb3d829d428c918d69fef9531a3444@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <9bbb3d829d428c918d69fef9531a3444@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri,  7 Feb 2003 09:50:58 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 53032ac4-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:13:08PM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> i think this is what you're talking about,
> but it hardly seems a fitting entry.  also it's
> not true anymore, a fact i have recently
> discovered by crashing unix boxes with
> reasonable nfs traffic.  good luck crashing
> plan 9 with 9p traffic.

  It's not that hard. I've posted a recipe once here. You just need
  a buggy 9p server that stops in the middle of transaction and never
  sends anything (including R message client is waiting for) back.
  So, if you try to kill this hanging  app kernel just runs out
  of tags and hangs. Nothing helps but reboot. ASS/AHS I guess.

Thanks,
Roman.