From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <cb781342a3d1ba6653c70ccfd0aa4d87@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:30:00 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <49E78FA9.7080206@home.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] To virtualise cpu/fs/auth-servers, or not?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: de916bc4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> The plan9-way seems to be to divide the tasks
> of running programs, storing files, authenti-
> cation and user interaction, to separate
> servers or computers. This makes sense in
> a large system with many users, but does it
> also have appeal in a system with at most a
> couple of users (mostly me)?
>
[...]
>
> Up till now, I have been drawterming to
> an all-in-one cpu/fs/auth-server. Nothing
> very demanding, really. More out for a
> philosophical discussion.

i find it's very useful to seperate the fs from
everything else.  since i run ken's fs, i don't
have a choice.  even if i did, it's really a good
idea to not allow any of the problems devon's
pointing out (or normal bugs) torpedo your
fs.

with vms and fossil/venti, you may pay a performance
penalty for this.  i don't know.

- erik