From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Cc: rminnich@lanl.gov
Subject: Re: [9fans] xen port?
Message-Id: <20040321172443.076993e8@dhcppc1>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403190752090.13503-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
References: <237cdbb8.0403190517.1fb498c7@posting.google.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403190752090.13503-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:24:43 +1000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3bd4ba28-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:52:30 -0700 (MST) ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Leo Caves wrote:
>
>> I am interested to hear opinion on what xen might offer in the Plan
>> 9/inferno world-view.
>
>my one interest was that I could run auth, fs, and term on one laptop.
>
>ron

Me three. and, get around non-supported h/w by using a virtual machine instance
which would be a longterm port available across changing pee cee hardware.

xens website claims to reveal a lot of the underlying machine speed-wise.
It may depend what you compare it to.

-George