From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrey mirtchovski To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] some #s In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:39:25 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c3d5ca18-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, ron minnich wrote: > Yes, in many cases, CPU servers should reboot after each job, in many > environments > in plan9 you could say that it suffices to get rid of the namespace of the job that had just completed :) there's another point that should be made (not that there's much interest in this discussion, but anyway): 9load does a very good job at what it's supposed to do. trying to accomplish a similar configuration under different operating systems is a much bigger PITA than it is with 9load+plan9.ini... A testament to that must be the amount of change to the source code that was required to fit 9load into the booting model that Ron demanded -- it's minimal at best :) andrey