From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:39:59 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] some light reading
Message-ID: <20040819183958.GC16760@submarine>
References: <6f28f6b801428965b48c867ea944fa4b@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
	<200408190924.23930.boris.maroshev@itcollege.ee>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200408190924.23930.boris.maroshev@itcollege.ee>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d6731d18-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:24:23AM +0300, Boris Maryshev wrote:
> =F7 =D3=CF=CF=C2=DD=C5=CE=C9=C9 =CF=D4 =FE=C5=D4=D7=C5=D2=C7 19 =E1=D7=C7=
=D5=D3=D4 2004 03:00 andrey mirtchovski =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC(a):
> > > Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
> > > which searches $PATH each time it runs a command.
> >
> > tim, i was being sarcastic :) 15 seconds for 40000 files and 2 second=
s
> > for 2000 binds is way better than what the guys in the comments
> > expected (remember, they haven't seen a working prototype of union
> > directories, at least not at userlevel, yet).
> >
> > however, i'd be very interested to see the way the linux guys optimiz=
e
> > their kernel, shall they ever come to fully implement union
> > directories as in Plan 9 (linux is about doing things better, isn't
> > it?  remember the recent TLB flush flamewar :)
> >
> > andrey
> Check out http://www.gobolinux.org/ You can try it on existing Linux ma=
chine=20
> using their shell script or you can install it or run from cd. They als=
o have=20
> some kernel module.=20

  That's what petrifies me. I always wondered if there should be a senten=
ce
  for kernel abuse. Have you seen their ioctls ?=20

Thanks,
Roman.