Xref: utzoo comp.unix.cray:202 comp.unix.large:113 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!seanf From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.cray,comp.unix.large Subject: Re: "vi" & Supercomputer Performance Message-ID: <8144@scolex.sco.COM> Date: 11 Oct 90 10:03:04 GMT References: <1990Oct4.050509.11405@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Sender: news@sco.COM Reply-To: seanf (Sean Fagan) Distribution: usa Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Lines: 19 In article boylanr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (ross boylan) writes: >I recall that some documentation from NCSA (Crays under UNICOS) said >that it was OK to run emacs; it didn't degrade system performance. Ah, yes, Crays: machines where a 1-2Mb EMACS process is considered small. It isn't that the emacs didn't degrade performance, it was that it was found that using emacs (or other editors, for that matter) locally on the cray was more efficient in *programmer time* than ftp'ing the file from the cray, editing locally on your workstation, and ftp'ing it back. And, yes, programmer time is still very expensive. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "Never knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death really hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.