From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:24:19 +0000 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <98CCE297-BE54-4ADA-B57D-DB8FE71060BA@sun.com> <1282469A8843837F996E64E1@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 468ea378-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > That isn't happening. All we have is one TCP connection and one small > program exporting file service. I see. But then, is it the "small program exporting file service" that does the multiplexing? I mean, if two machines import a gateway's /net and both run HTTP servers binding to and listening on *:80 what takes care of which packet belongs to which HTTP server? On a UNIX clone, or on Windows, because there is exactly one TCP/IP protocol stack in usual setups no two programs can bind to the same port at the same time. I thought Plan 9's approach eliminated that by keeping a distinct instance of the stack for each imported /net. --On Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:46 AM -0800 Micah Stetson wrote: >> Very well said. This posting summarizes what's been going on: > > Thank you. > >> 2. Generality costs. > > Not always, and I think you may be overestimating the costs here. > Your later posts talk about making a complete copy of the TCP stack. > That isn't happening. All we have is one TCP connection and one small > program exporting file service. > > Micah >