Re: [9fans] plan 9 ports to unix (including libdraw)

[Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 145 bytes --]

regarding robustness, I'd say venti and fossil are robust. At least,
we did suffer more problems with the worm that we have with venti&fossil.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5169 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 497 bytes --]

i'd put fossil+venti on a separate machine from a general
cpu server, much as with the old file server.
that way you can give it lots of memory all to itself, for cache, and you are
much less likely to suffer unpleasantness (because a random program
exhausts memory for instance or trips over something in the system).

i'd have thought the auth could happily coexist, though:
they are small, fairly easily bounded as to the resource requirements,
and are unlikely to cause much trouble.

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2633 bytes --]

From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 ports to unix (including libdraw)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:01:12 +0900
Message-ID: <d0118b5cf7685bf21fe08e1a8707af55@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp>

> We need help.  We're falling further behind in supported devices.  We
> could use a real browser.  We need better C++ support (someone to
> really finish dave hogan's gnu work).  Rsc and I have discussed some
> possible projects to keep us going with a small number of people:

First of all, we need a robust file server!
I want to shift our file server to fossil+venti, however, I'm still hasitating.
This is because:
1) there are some negative experiences the users report.
2) no clear document to describe how to install it.
3) Is it really safe to use it as fossil+venti+auth server on one machine?

Etec, etc

Kenji