From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b3b4f6f30811161136o26e2c0edm6ea2ded17f19521a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:36:25 -0800
From: "Micah Stetson" <micah@stetsonnet.org>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <C8651D3E-4082-4A35-867E-A6792BC6494D@sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <DBCC6BB0C82C348357A14A53@192.168.1.2>
	<98CCE297-BE54-4ADA-B57D-DB8FE71060BA@sun.com>
	<b3b4f6f30811151413y17734ca3tc699fbf8bd497f0f@mail.gmail.com>
	<C8651D3E-4082-4A35-867E-A6792BC6494D@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 467a6bc4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> I think Eris is saying that this makes Plan
>> 9's resource requirements grow with the number of hosts behind the
>> gateway -- not just with the number of connections through it like
>> Linux.
>
> I don't quite follow. If by resources you mean process related resources
> than I would agree. My very first comment didn't have anything to do
> with process related resources.

I did mean the extra processes, and I assumed that was what Eris was
referring to.

> And for the TCP related resources I
> maintain that the amount of overhead in Plan9's case is definitely
> comparable to a Linux's case.

Right.

Micah