On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:38 -0700, ron minnich wrote: > 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.
Exposing an interface for process manipulation to userspace would be quite cool. Any prototypes on Plan9 so far? Thanks, Roman.
