On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:56:25 -0700, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > so you're dropping 9vx for plan9ports? I understand this but then I > don't understand how 9hpd at this point has anything to do with plan > 9.
Sorry, I did not articulate things more clearly. I will try to state what I am doing to proceed with 9hpd, and also note my assumptions to make sure that I understand the limitations of my tools. First, I am making the assumption that plan9port can communicate with native Plan 9 computational servers. If the above assumption is correct, then writing/testing 9hpd on plan9port allows me to verify multi-core support, and then I can retest the functionality on 9vx which does not handle multi-cores support. Once I get the basics working and tested in plan9port and 9vx, I intend to move on to native Plan 9 installations. The bits of test code I have written appear to work on all three, so I do not see this as being a departure from plan 9. If you feel differently, please explain. My overall strategy is to make sure that the basic functionality works properly on the end users machine without access to native plan9 machines, and then make sure that it works on the grid, etc. Focusing on plan9port for the time being is simply intended as a stop gap to help make sure that the concurrency is working properly, and explores potentially alternative interfaces. Another possible venue is using qemu or other virtual machines. I am not sure what the best way forward once hpd's basic functionality is working, but I need to get there first. Hope this helps, EBo -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Plan 9 Google Summer of Code" group. To post to this group, send email to plan9-g...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to plan9-gsoc+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/plan9-gsoc?hl=en.
