From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:07:13 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 51fd38f4-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam wrote: > I just don't understand what you conceive as "slow." Well, on Pink, a 1024-node cluster we just built here, I can fire up a command to 1024 nodes from start to completion in < 4 seconds, and we consider that slow. Lest you think this a worthless benchmark I can tell you that startup overhead matters when scaling to this size system. My hunch is that Plan 9 would not start up quite this fast. But that is only based on very limited experience with 'cpu'. But you are correct in that I am not being specific. Sadly, my impressions are based on work done here last summer measuring TCP etc., and Andrey knows way better than I what the outcome of that was. However that doesn't much matter; what I'm taking from this discussion is that most Plan 9 users, who are developers not end-users, are satisfied with the performance of the system as is and see no need to try to make it competitive with the *nux* breeds. Given the overall far better quality of Plan 9 as an OS I find that understandable. That said, I did think David Butler's remarks were pretty interesting. Thanks ron p.s. What I really want to know: is Google going to run Plan 9 :-)