From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200509161257.j8GCv8L03380@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] killing processes In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:05:02 +0100." <20050915160502.GQ30467@server4.lensbuddy.com> References: <20050915150756.GO30467@server4.lensbuddy.com> <20050915160502.GQ30467@server4.lensbuddy.com> From: Axel Belinfante MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3378.1126875427.1@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl.cs.utwente.nl> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:57:08 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8b193110-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I didn't say that wasn't the main reason, just that proximity to the > file server was also a factor, I can't find the quote I'm looking for > which I think was more explicit, but from > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html > > "The effect of running a cpu command is therefore to start a shell on a > fast machine, one more tightly coupled to the file server" > > And I wasn't as much trying to make history remark, as trying to point > an important and often overlooked feature of 'cpu' servers. I think this tighter coupling is exactly the reason why I cpu from home to work instead of just mounting work-fs at home: the connection home-work is fast enough to do remote editing, but limited enough to make local (at home) compilation of files residing on the remote (work) fs more painful. Axel.