From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:41:22 +0200 From: Mechiel Lukkien To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20090417234122.GE8655@knaagkever.ueber.net> References: <20090417193910.GA3103@polynum.com> <5ffcabbd9a2a14f17eb93ecdf8dd8110@bellsouth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ffcabbd9a2a14f17eb93ecdf8dd8110@bellsouth.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [9fans] VMs, etc. (was: Re: security questions) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4c1fac2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:25:40PM -0500, blstuart@bellsouth.net wrote: > Again, that's not to say that there aren't other valid motivators > for some centralized functionality. It's just that in my opinion, > we're at the point were if it's raw cycles we need, we'll have > to be looking at a large cluster and not a simple CPU server. exactly. the main use of a cpu server for me (and many others i suspect) is running network services. it's still nice to have a machine that's always on for that (my terminals are not stable/always on enough for providing services to others). perhaps "cpu server" is a wrong name name. "service server" anyone? ;) mjl