[9fans] Unix trampoline?

[9fans] Unix trampoline?

[a]

okay, i've been banging my head against a wall since
yesterday trying to do a simple port-forward on unix.
i'm having a heck of a time getting natd, ipfw, and
ssh to all play nice together. i'd love to just skip
the whole deal and run trampoline from aux/listen,
but, obviously, i've got neither trampoline nor
aux/listen on unix. anyone got either?

also (and this may be off-topic but the inferno list
won't talk to me), does anyone know where the best
current source for the Mac OS X Inferno distribution
is? that might solve the above problem, too.

thanks,
ア

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[phillip stanley-marbell]

Jeff Sickel has the ball on that.

	http://corpus-callosum.com/software.html.

His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly. I believe all his fixes
have been sent back to VN, so they should appear in
the next 4e beta also.

cheers,
pip


On Jan 20, 2004, at 7:45 AM, a@9srv.net wrote:

> also (and this may be off-topic but the inferno list
> won't talk to me), does anyone know where the best
> current source for the Mac OS X Inferno distribution
> is? that might solve the above problem, too.

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[C H Forsyth]

>>His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly. I believe all his fixes
>>have been sent back to VN, so they should appear in
>>the next 4e beta also.

yes, that's right.

i can't get any sense out of egroups myself today so it looks like yet
another email list under better control.

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[Jack Johnson]

On Jan 20, 2004, at 7:24 AM, phillip stanley-marbell wrote:
> 	http://corpus-callosum.com/software.html.
>
> His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly.

I just tried it, and it does.

What's bizarre is that it seems to run noticeably faster on my wife's
iBook than it does on my Athlon under Plan 9.  Anyone know of a
benchmark I could use?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[Bruce Ellis]

if you are looking at graphics performance then the Mac
will win 'cause it doesn't have to be redirected to /dev/draw.

try a real application for a real benchmark (well something
that means something to you).

majette's benchmark was "let's run bgp and see how long
it takes to get all the stuff" (paraphrased) and then some
stuff about the tardiness of the gc.  things got faster, a lot
faster, 'cause i had real data to work on.

i haven't really answered you question.  sorry, i'll go to
sleep now.

brucee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Johnson" <fragment@nas.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?


> On Jan 20, 2004, at 7:24 AM, phillip stanley-marbell wrote:
> > http://corpus-callosum.com/software.html.
> >
> > His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly.
>
> I just tried it, and it does.
>
> What's bizarre is that it seems to run noticeably faster on my wife's
> iBook than it does on my Athlon under Plan 9.  Anyone know of a
> benchmark I could use?
>
> -Jack

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1249 bytes --]

i noticed that when the plan 9 scheduler changed quite
some time ago, inferno's interactive
responsiveness degraded compared
to Windows, where it's quite good;
under Plan 9 it was still much better
than it was under any Linux variant
i've tried.  the recent plan 9 scheduler changes
improved it, but it's still not as good as it once was.
(we've got a fairly objective test for it, so it's a little
more than just an impression.)  i did change
the way some things were done to evade faults
in the underlying scheduling (eg, sched_yield can be unhelpful),
but something still sticks on some host systems.  that's also when i
discovered just how appalling Linux's scheduler actually is, and has
been years.  good source for a good sneer, anyhow.
as well as brucee's suggestion about graphics, it might
also be different scheduling in MacOSX.
Inferno's unusual on most host systems in using
possibly many host processes in a single application.
that's when you start discovering the (possibly missing)
fine print on the various `threads'/processes manual pages...
and the implementations.
Plan 9 is fairly good with rfork, to pull this back nearer list topic.
let me know if you find a good (ie, realistic) test and profile it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2586 bytes --]

From: Jack Johnson <fragment@nas.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:22:18 -0800
Message-ID: <356618B4-4F07-11D8-B07D-000A95E29604@nas.com>

On Jan 20, 2004, at 7:24 AM, phillip stanley-marbell wrote:
> 	http://corpus-callosum.com/software.html.
>
> His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly.

I just tried it, and it does.

What's bizarre is that it seems to run noticeably faster on my wife's
iBook than it does on my Athlon under Plan 9.  Anyone know of a
benchmark I could use?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[boyd, rounin]

> ... that's also when i
> discovered just how appalling Linux's scheduler actually is, and has
> been years.  good source for a good sneer, anyhow.

it is truly frightening, particularily when you read comments like:

 *  2002-01-04  New ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler by Ingo Molnar:
 *              hybrid priority-list and round-robin design with
 *              an array-switch method of distributing timeslices
 *              and per-CPU runqueues.  Cleanups and useful suggestions
 *              by Davide Libenzi, preemptible kernel bits by Robert Love.

err, yes i've been delving through this stuff.

if you want a near death experience, read:

    /usr/include/linux/list.h

Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline?

[Dan Cross]

a@9srv.net writes:
>
> okay, i've been banging my head against a wall since
> yesterday trying to do a simple port-forward on unix.
> i'm having a heck of a time getting natd, ipfw, and
> ssh to all play nice together. i'd love to just skip
> the whole deal and run trampoline from aux/listen,
> but, obviously, i've got neither trampoline nor
> aux/listen on unix. anyone got either?

What about netcat started from inetd?  That does largely the same
thing, and I've used it to good effect to shuttle bytes between the
HTTPS port on one machine to the SSH port on another.  Alternately, I
have a Unix trampoline I wrote once and posted to 9fans.  It's either
in the list archives, or in /usr/cross/src/unixsrc/c/misc/trampoline.c
on my machines, which you have an account on.  I wrote it under MacOS
X, so it should work in your environment.

As an aside, completely unrelated to Anthony's question, a good way to
get around overly restrictive corporate firewalls: take an SSH client
that can deal with an HTTP proxy [PuTTY is a good one], and connect to
an SSH server answering on the HTTPS port of a server out on the
Internet somewhere, and forward a bunch of ports through it.  Most HTTP
proxies will let you connect to remote HTTPS ports; if not, run the SSH
server on the HTTP port itself.

In my case, I have a Sun running an HTTP proxy on the localhost
interface.  In my restrictive environment, I SSH through the HTTP proxy
in the local firewall to the HTTPS port of another Sun that forwards to
the SSH server on the first Sun (Why?  I have a real HTTPS server
listening on the first Sun).  I forward whatever ports I'm interested
in, including the HTTP proxy port, and I run my web browser using my
local machine as a proxy, which forwards to the Sun, which in turn
proxies my web traffic (and whatever else I want, like AIM).  The Sun
is on a network I trust no one to be sniffing.  Or, if they are, I
don't particularly care.  At least this way, no one is sniffing my
local traffic unless they're monitoring my keystrokes or what goes
over the loopback interface.

	- Dan C.