From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <509071940711090640y7dd8f2d7u1605033984cacde3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri,  9 Nov 2007 09:40:30 -0500
From: "Anthony Sorace" <anothy@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] cpu(1) design...
In-Reply-To: <691e7ca02963cc4348bfb160ec4357de@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <691e7ca02963cc4348bfb160ec4357de@quintile.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f03cdfe0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 11/9/07, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:

// was there ever any thought that cpu could/should put you
// onto  the least loaded machine in your authdom...

That seems more a server function than a client function to me; thus,
cpu(1) would be the wrong place to do it. I'd rather the servers in
some cluster figure out amongst themselves who handles a given call,
rather than the client having to do some sort of polling or inquiry.
Also, that keeps a more consistent user experience.


// ...is the idea that you would only want to cpu(1) to another
// machine because of the services or network topology you
// (as a human) want rather than just to find more grunt.

Certainly originally cpu(1) was frequently used simply to get to a
bigger machine. That's the way many of the early docs describe its
use, and was also the practice at the Labs a decade ago. This use has
become less common (at least for me) as terminals become so much more
powerful.

Wanting to get at particular resources is also a valid reason, of
course, although in my usage import and friends more often serve that
need.

// why does cpu not have a default argument?

I'm not sure I follow what you're asking for here. $cpu *is* the
default; if you want something else, you can give it.

Anthony