On 9/6/07, Joel C. Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't imagine that either of these uses are nearly compelling enough > to open this can of worms.... Has anyone truly felt confined by Plan > 9's fork+exec model?
yes, because exec takes a pathname. that's a pull model. That is pretty awful in a large machine. Define awful: ok, it's the difference between startup times of 3+ minutes, 400 nodes, vs. 3 seconds. That's awful. it's why we started doing xcpu in the first place: push the binary to a ram disk, then at least xcpu is pulling from a local place, not a network. But xcpu was a compromise: I really wanted to do a process creation device. ron
