From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: "Steve Simon" Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:33:43 +0000 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] cpu(1) design... In-Reply-To: <509071940711090655r445ab903sd820f3ebbb584836@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: f05d2eda-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >i think what steve's getting at is: why doesn't cpu take >any non-flagged command-line arguments? >> ah, i see. yes, i've been caught by that as well. >> >> the problem is i've also been caught doing 'cpu system', thinking of >> it as a parallel to ssh or telnet. i probably assume -c more often >> than -h, but that does seem less consistent with other "remote access" >> commands. Yes, exactly - It just "feels strange", I know I can bodge it locally but I was just thought it strange that it works this way and wondered if there was a reason (in the mists of time perhaps). > That seems more a server function than a client function to me; I was imagining somthing like the load balancing code I have seen for Unix, each box multicasts a load estimate regularly and a local daemon picks these up and answers "which is the least loaded machine" requests; obviously I also imagined a much more elegant solution for a plan9 environment... -Steve