From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:19:50 +0200." <10af1064d3ac35a8d2f62214d5eec485@gmx.de> References: <10af1064d3ac35a8d2f62214d5eec485@gmx.de> From: Bakul Shah Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:03:12 -0700 Message-Id: <20101015180312.3C58E5BB4@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?b?z4Bw?= Topicbox-Message-UUID: 66e22d28-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:19:50 +0200 cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote: > > i wonder if making 9p work better over high latency connections is > even the right answer to the problem. the real problem is that the > data your program wants to work on in miles away from you and > transfering it all will suck. would it not be cool to have a way to > teleport/migrate your process to a cpu server close to the data? Pipelining solves the problem of inefficient use of long fat pipes. Migration just moves the problem, doesn't solve it. In fact, if you don't use pipelining, even your migration will be extremely slow :-)