is this also true for everything running on the same machine? i'd be interested in what the performance difference is in that case.
does the kernel or a userlevel fs serve /cmd? - erik On Fri Jun 9 17:18:40 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Without caching, a lot. When you cache the file nearby /cmd, and > you avoid copying if you can do so, it´s not so slow (don´t have numbers > right now, sorry). > > On 6/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it is interesting that plan 9 could be rearranged as a classic µkernel, > > using > > 9p for message passing. a process server could do just that. > > before you kill me, note the difference between "interesting" and "better." > > ☺ > > > > how much slower is an exec over /cmd than via fork(2)/exec(2)? > > > > - erik > > > > On Fri Jun 9 16:59:40 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Well, in Plan B we made an experimental /cmd, where processes > > > were files in the sense that mkdir created one process, cp was used > > > to supply the binary and the like. It did work, but it seemed more > > > convenient to use the distributed plumbing to deliver cmd execution > > > requests, and then, ox, the shell underlying omero, is in charge of > > > executing the commands. Now we are back into /proc.
