From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:37:19 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <22d498b89c3b4d2e50c1c5cc0e9d72c0@lilly.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CB999B4-E9C6-4A74-B849-4003DD3D23D1@9srv.net>
References: <7f11f16bfdb01c0041b0397a1cea04c5@proxima.alt.za>
	<7dc7cfb35a012dedc41828d03d5cdff3@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<CAEAzY39_rz4h3D_NcGQwuELUh0UYvmf1+Oo0HmRVAHbDyx4qyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB999B4-E9C6-4A74-B849-4003DD3D23D1@9srv.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] running plan9 : an ideal setup?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2cebcd92-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Nov 20 01:02:53 EST 2014, a@9srv.net wrote:
> I can't speak for Erik's cec-as-nonet setup specifically, but I've wanted nonet (or an equivalent) many, many times. Networks are fast enough that tcp/ip overhead isn't really something that hurts in most cases, but it does exist.

anthony, i'm sure your fingers just got crossed up, but i think you ment
computers are fast enough that the overhead doesn't matter.

- erik