From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: <plan9@itic.ca>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] system responsiveness
Message-ID: <FIEDLHOOAEHBJAPIKGJCAEDICBAA.plan9@itic.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu,  2 May 2002 00:14:05 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 83db436c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


Exactly the same remark. FS / CPU and Term are faster on the same =
hardware.

The most significant demonstration is while pushing the Plan 9 replica

I had no time to stand up, not even think about the tea cup :
P3 900 MHz CPU/AUTH  <--100Mbps crossover--> P3 900 MHz File Server

I was also able to crate files directly on FS root. Hereafter is the FS =
configuration

1st config
  service 9fs2k
  ip 192.168.0.9
  ipgw 192.168.0.1
  ipmask 255.255.255.0
  ipauth 192.168.0.100
  config h1
  filsys main ch0fh1
  filsys dump o
  ream main
  allow
  noauth
  end

users default

Then from the CPU/AUTH machine :

9fs 192.168.0.9
mount -c /srv/192.168.0.9 /n/dist
......

Last point : I have both cached and diskless machines (getting AUTH FS =
from IL)

The diskless Plan 9 Terminal works fine, even for new authentication =
mecanisms.

<forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk>
> i've got a full 4th edition network having upgraded
> my 3rd edition network at home.  as i use it, i keep
> thinking it feels somewhat faster than the previous
> release, on precisely the same hardware.
>