Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- From: quanstro@xxxxxxxxxxxx (erik quanstrom)
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:52:23 GMT
On Tue Apr 27 00:31:03 EDT 2010, newsham@xxxxxxxx wrote:
What about some mounting/binding hackery where you replace
/dev/cons so that the original "cpu" command works?
why the resistance to il? rx is a good example of il's strengths.
in order for cpu to work, it uses 2 extra processes. rx is much
more efficient. (and 1/4 the code) great for your trusted network.
or perhaps your local supercomputer.
rx doesn't do encryption. a srx using ssl/tls would be
able to sneak a 0 write through since the record layer
should expand that into a application record with
application data length of 0.
- erik
.
- References:
- Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- From: Tim Newsham
- Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- Prev by Date: Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- Next by Date: Re: [9fans] three sets of windows
- Previous by thread: Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- Next by thread: Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
- Index(es):