On 09/03/2014 10:36 AM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
Just to anticipate some answers:
* I know I could export the file system via nfs, and run ssh
cpu-machine racket, but can it be done without exporting the filesystem?
And while we are on the topic, is there something more modern than nfs?
--
Anthony,
I'm playing with sshfs. Anybody got comparisons for sshfs vs nfs?
And I second the something more modern than nfs?
Cheers.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:38:57AM -0400, Anthony Carrico wrote:
On 09/03/2014 10:36 AM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
Just to anticipate some answers:
* I know I
Hi Anthony,
Anthony Carrico acarr...@memebeam.org writes:
I was editing some local source-code in a local emacs buffer. The emacs
mode (racket-mode) uses local programs (racket, raco) to compile, run
tests, run the repl, etc. It would be nice to run that on a (faster)
remote cpu, but the
On 09/03/2014 12:51 PM, Richard Lawrence wrote:
I suppose this is *way* overkill for your scenario, but I have read that
Plan 9 is designed for exactly this kind of thing.
Ah, the age of the microkernel ... never arrived. That sounds like a
rabbit hole I never escape from!
--
Anthony Carrico
...@gmail.com
To: VAGUE@LIST.UVM.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:15:15 PM
Subject: Re: remote cpu / local i/o
I thought Racket had remote execution as a feature.
Concerning Emacs, I know Tramp Mode gets a bad name, but I find that
it is pretty well integrated across modes*. If you open
What kind of comparisons do you want? Performance? Reliability? Integrity?
NFSv4 is pretty modern. It's not your grandpa's NFS.
Ben
On 3 Sep 2014, at 11:10, Joe Golden wrote:
Anthony,
I'm playing with sshfs. Anybody got comparisons for sshfs vs nfs?
And I second the something more
