From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5efb0db6fba0c2dc536240f5d82185ef@coraid.com> From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:15:56 -0400 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] bell-labs website and plan9 In-Reply-To: <20070409232635.GA3187@kris.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 42e0c67c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i don't understand why ssh "using a seperate protocol" implies that it should be significantly faster than 9p. could you explain why you think this? On Mon Apr 9 19:27:33 EDT 2007, bsdaemon@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:22:27AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > >My take is that bringing in mercurial, and then using mercurial with > >mounted file systems, instead of ssh, would be quite neat. And, we are > >close to having it. > > I'd think that it would be practically a no-op, but I'm not sure of hg's > locking semantics. I'd say that it would be a very good idea to support > cpu and ssh, though, since ssh uses a separate protocol which should be > significantly faster than just doing the work over 9P. Again, I'm not > sure of the details.