Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!ria.ccs.uwo.ca!kinch
From: kinch@no17sun.csd.uwo.ca (Dave Kinchlea)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Incremental sync()s and using disk idle time
Message-ID: <KINCH.91Mar14021809@no17sun.csd.uwo.ca>
Date: 14 Mar 91 07:18:09 GMT
References: <28975@cs.yale.edu> <PCG.91Feb28195347@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk>
	<PCG.91Mar4210505@aberdb.cs.aber.ac.uk>
	<1991Mar5.223443.21187@ns.uoregon.edu>
	<1991Mar6.003008.9131@bellcore.bellcore.com>
	<1991Mar7.115154.4820@hq.demos.su> <1991Mar8.142031.9098@bellcore.b
Sender: news@ria.ccs.uwo.ca
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Western Ontarioqq
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 12 Mar 91 20:22:38 GMT

In article <1991Mar12.202238.19586@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:


   [Incidentally, is there some reason why twits (or readers written by twits)
                                           ^^^^^
   keep saying "Followup-To: comp.protocols.nfs", when this topic is only
   marginally related to NFS and highly related to architecture?  It's quite
   annoying to have to keep manually fixing this.]

As I started this particular thread I suppose I am to blame, a plead guilty 
and throw myself at the mercy of USENET.

cheers kinch