From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:28:33 +0900 From: kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: de5a3a06-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page, and build those on my Debian stable machine. I also read the paper of vx32 last week. Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with games/mahjongg on that virtual machine. Thank you very much Russ! However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more neccessary, shouldn't ? Kenji From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:58:53 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_26508_18936667.1215532733488" References: Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: de72fb9a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_26508_18936667.1215532733488 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I believe the reasoning is as such: Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. Use Linux as your driver repository... this is an approach used by some microkernel systems like L4. Dave On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM, wrote: > I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page, > and build those on my Debian stable machine. > I also read the paper of vx32 last week. > Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with > games/mahjongg on that virtual machine. > Thank you very much Russ! > > However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for > Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe > Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more > neccessary, shouldn't ? > > Kenji > > > ------=_Part_26508_18936667.1215532733488 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I believe the reasoning is as such:

Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.

Use Linux as your driver repository... this is an approach used by some microkernel systems like L4.

Dave

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM, <kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp> wrote:
I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page,
and build those on my Debian stable machine.
I also read the paper of vx32 last week.
Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with
games/mahjongg on that virtual machine.
Thank you very much Russ!

However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
neccessary, shouldn't ?

Kenji



------=_Part_26508_18936667.1215532733488-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:04:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: de8591e2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I believe the reasoning is as such: > > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of plan 9? in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. i don't mean to use a broad brush. there are good reasons for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use a linux hosting company. but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as a device driver. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807080933u21d3b562ud3f6626346b999cd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:33:13 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: dea74aee-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get > rid of plan 9? > Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier for people to consider using the real thing. ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5905ec798728589930ed2612ef5fcfa7@terzarima.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: Charles Forsyth Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:47:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <13426df10807080933u21d3b562ud3f6626346b999cd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: deb34326-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software > tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier > for people to consider using the real thing. yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, GCOS, ... which didn't do all that much for you. now the underlying system has all the fun. (unless you need to program it.) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:19:51 -0700 From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: dec3969a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for > Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe > Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more > neccessary, shouldn't ? i'm not sure if this was the authors' intent, but making plan9 easily accessible to a larger group (mac, linux and someday windows users) will make plan9 more popular. vxlinux under plan9 will be useful, but only to us 9fans. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@9fans.net Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? From: "Russ Cox" Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:27:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080708172610.ADA9E1E8C2B@holo.morphisms.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: decec2e0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for > Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe > Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more > neccessary, shouldn't ? I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use Plan 9 but, for various reasons, must use FreeBSD or Linux or Mac OS X. Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use Linux but must use Plan 9. I am sure such people exist, but I feel no sympathy toward them. ;-) Russ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9dd24bcd20558c5a4480048decad8b73@9srv.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:39:21 -0400 From: a@9srv.net In-Reply-To: <20080708172610.ADA9E1E8C2B@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-vwhxyofmtvctssbecbcwgynslk" Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: ded41e0c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-vwhxyofmtvctssbecbcwgynslk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, there's also people like me: I prefer and am able to use Plan 9 the bulk of the time, but have a few particular tasks I need Linux for. It'd be nice to be able to stick the Linux box in a little jail. I'm very glad 9vx exists: I now have Plan 9 on my OS X laptop. I'd like Lvx to stick on my Plan 9 cpu servers. As it stands, I'll be converting one of my older cpu servers into a linux box in a few weeks. That makes me feel unclean. Anthony --upas-vwhxyofmtvctssbecbcwgynslk Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from gouda.swtch.com ([67.207.142.3]) by 9srv.net; Tue Jul 8 13:28:50 EDT 2008 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=gouda.swtch.com) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <9fans-bounces@9fans.net>) id 1KGGyw-0002tH-8P; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:28:02 +0000 Received: from holo.morphisms.net ([216.254.78.15]) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KGGyv-0002tA-M6 for 9fans@9fans.net; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:28:01 +0000 Received: by holo.morphisms.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id ADA9E1E8C2B; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:26:10 -0400 (EDT) To: 9fans@9fans.net From: "Russ Cox" Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:27:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080708172610.ADA9E1E8C2B@holo.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? X-BeenThere: 9fans@9fans.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.9fans.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net Errors-To: 9fans-bounces+a=9srv.net@9fans.net > However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for > Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe > Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more > neccessary, shouldn't ? I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use Plan 9 but, for various reasons, must use FreeBSD or Linux or Mac OS X. Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use Linux but must use Plan 9. I am sure such people exist, but I feel no sympathy toward them. ;-) Russ --upas-vwhxyofmtvctssbecbcwgynslk-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:46:37 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: deda0a06-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> I believe the reasoning is as such: >> >> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. > > in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo > on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining > linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. > That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used. I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can be setup to pass-through device access to network, disk, audio, whatever. The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules the roost. Linux just deals with device access. I don't really think this undermines Plan 9 in any way unless you are keen on optimizing device performance -- in which case you do indeed most likely want native. But my point is, the Linux "I/O layer" is essentially non-administered. It doesn't need user accounts, an IP address, or even much of a file system (just enough to boot Plan 9 like in THX). -ericvh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:49:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: dee07fa8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo >> on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining >> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. >> > > That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used. > I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can > be setup to pass-through device access to network, disk, audio, > whatever. The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially > pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules > the roost. Linux just deals with device access. you didn't explain the part where you avoid admining the linux host. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <0195f1229ebe57f1dddce928e5809f54@9srv.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:38:06 -0400 From: a@9srv.net To: 9fans@9fans.net In-Reply-To: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: def73db0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full network information. especially if your linux has been gutted so you don't have "helpful" demons running around in the background, this can be a fairly light - and front-loaded - burden. non-zero, to be sure, but not what you'd expect from a normal production linux box. anthony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60807081150h19fc1991sada17c19e4ed855f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:50:41 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_27479_23443698.1215543041349" References: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: defc990e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_27479_23443698.1215543041349 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > I believe the reasoning is as such: > > > > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. > > if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get > rid of plan 9? I'm just saying I would never consider running linux on plan 9. I can't think of a single reason I'd ever want to do that, because, linux is so much easier to get installed on real hardware than plan 9. > > in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo > on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining > linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. If the goal was to avoid admining linux then one shouldn't run linux. That's not much of an argument. May as well run 9vx on FreeBSD :-) Same argument holds. > > i don't mean to use a broad brush. there are good reasons > for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use > a linux hosting company. > > but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as > a device driver. Nope Linux got where it is by apache. > > > - erik > > > ------=_Part_27479_23443698.1215543041349 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>
> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.

if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?

I'm just saying I would never consider running linux on plan 9.  I can't think of a single reason I'd ever want to do that, because, linux is so much easier to get installed on real hardware than plan 9.



in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.

If the goal was to avoid admining linux then one shouldn't run linux.  That's not much of an argument.  May as well run 9vx on FreeBSD :-)  Same argument holds.



i don't mean to use a broad brush.  there are good reasons
for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use
a linux hosting company.

but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as
a device driver.

Nope Linux got where it is by apache.
 


- erik



------=_Part_27479_23443698.1215543041349-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6966d55ac896b3459f889b77a5bfc787@quanstro.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:01:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0195f1229ebe57f1dddce928e5809f54@9srv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: df035cc6-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think > eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get > a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own > access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full > network information. especially if your linux has been gutted so you > don't have "helpful" demons running around in the background, this > can be a fairly light - and front-loaded - burden. non-zero, to be > sure, but not what you'd expect from a normal production linux box. > anthony are you taking security updates into account. they're the #1 biggest timewaster for me and they're not front loaded. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <67d32703c39ead7d16cf751cecf5dc44@9srv.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:46:52 -0400 From: a@9srv.net To: 9fans@9fans.net In-Reply-To: <6966d55ac896b3459f889b77a5bfc787@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: df0fb142-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i believe i am, but perhaps your experience is different from mine. certainly there's less stuff to worry about patches for if you've got less stuff on the box. again, the idea is not to take ubuntu (or whatever) and stick a VM on top, but rather to strip the linux down to just what's needed to run the VM, like THNX. far fewer security updates, although i suppose one could argue it'll be more manual, ad hoc, and time consuming per update. i've not done enough of that to really say. i'm certainly not trying to convince you to run linux. if you don't have a pre-existing compelling reason to run it, don't. all i (and i believe eric) am saying is that if you *do* have such a reason, a tailored VM environment can reduce the burden quite a lot. anthony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:03:45 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: df187ebc-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >>> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo >>> on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining >>> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. >>> >> >> That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used. >> I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can >> be setup to pass-through device access to network, disk, audio, >> whatever. The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially >> pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules >> the roost. Linux just deals with device access. > > you didn't explain the part where you avoid admining the > linux host. > I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network. Admin done. Alternatively I could do something clever like kvmfs or xcpu or some combination thereof an boot arbitrary images on partitions on the cluster of drones -- but the most simple example is the one given above. -eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:15:53 -0400 From: William Josephson To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20080708201553.GA69211@mero.morphisms.net> References: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: df89e228-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all > tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup > lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network. > Admin done. I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major pain with most of the common distributions. I guess it has been a while since I last looked: how do you make it work reliably with updates without effectively rolling your own distribution? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:38:35 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080708201553.GA69211@mero.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> <20080708201553.GA69211@mero.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: dfb85072-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, William Josephson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: >> I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all >> tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup >> lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network. >> Admin done. > > I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major > pain with most of the common distributions. I guess it has > been a while since I last looked: how do you make it work > reliably with updates without effectively rolling your own > distribution? > I didn't do the grunt work on this one, my friends in Germany built the setup to run xcpu, but it can be adapted just as easily to run the KVM drones. Mind you, the "distribution" in this case is hardly anything -- just the necessary tools to start lguest/kvm and get tun/tap working properly to get to the underlying network. You should effectively be able to build this by hand with any distro. -eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:08 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080708201553.GA69211@mero.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5a03888bc4077fcac1298b2e80fc34aa@quanstro.net> <20080708201553.GA69211@mero.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: dfd2a3d2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, William Josephson wrote: > I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major > pain with most of the common distributions. yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org for a reasonable system, used at sandia on a 4096-node cluster. for even lighter weight, see the xcpu.org tutorial on onesis+xcpu. xcpu2 now works almost the same as the cpu command (yes, cpu as in plan 9 cpu). ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: "Steve Simon" Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:16:46 +0100 To: 9fans@9fans.net In-Reply-To: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e006f2c2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps) and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using v9fs rather than nfs. It wouldn't buy you much, except a linux environment thats easier for plan9 users to manage and support. With a following wind you might even get cinap's rather amazing linuxemu to use it as a runtime environment (shared libraries etc). I suspose you could start going mad and build a special gethostbyname() for your linux environment which understands how to talk to /net/dns etc. sort of p9p upsidedown... just silly ideas which I should probably have kept to myself. -Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:32:27 +0200 From: "David du Colombier" <0intro@gmail.com> To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e00ce740-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried > building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps) > and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating > you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using > v9fs rather than nfs. I had the same idea few days ago. I find it quite interesting. But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS? -- David du Colombier From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:01:15 -0600 From: don bailey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e04ba99e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks > on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS? > The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files whose contents are another file's path. As long as the kernel knows how to interpret it I'm sure it'd be fine. Look at the inverse: Plan 9 on Linux simply sees a Linux symlink as what ever the symlink points to. For example, in your 9vx tree do: `ln -s sparc64 v9` and run 9vx.Linux. D From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:13:31 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e054bc00-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM, don bailey wrote: >> But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks >> on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS? >> > > The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files > whose contents are another file's path. As long as the kernel > knows how to interpret it I'm sure it'd be fine. Look at the > inverse: Plan 9 on Linux simply sees a Linux symlink as what > ever the symlink points to. For example, in your 9vx tree > do: `ln -s sparc64 v9` and run 9vx.Linux. > you would think it would work that way. You would think that the server, upon hitting a symlink, would just indirect through it and all would be well. And it's true, the kernel doesn't care. But userspace does. (http://www.linuxinsight.com/ols2006_why_userspace_sucks_or_101_really_dumb_things_your_app_shouldnt_do.html) is really right. When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even recall all the places, but they're there. And things break if you mount and don't have symlinks. Which is why I put readlink etc. in my v9fs, and why the .U version is in today's linux kernels. thanks ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:17:01 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e066c92c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM, ron minnich wrote: > > When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems > over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code > that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even > recall all the places, but they're there. And things break if you > mount and don't have symlinks. > > Which is why I put readlink etc. in my v9fs, and why the .U version is > in today's linux kernels. > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807082043x2d698775g78f1e9b820d17831@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 20:43:34 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e089c27e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or > RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end. > unless we all get smart and go into banking. ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <232f6686c5066208bf4d6004d6078954@quanstro.net> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:45:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <13426df10807082043x2d698775g78f1e9b820d17831@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0907128-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or >> RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end. >> > > unless we all get smart and go into banking. then you'll have fun chasing a different set of endlessly changing rules. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <283f5df10807082133n438e1275x5ad2fad3ab6e2f40@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:33:09 -0400 From: "LiteStar numnums" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <5905ec798728589930ed2612ef5fcfa7@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_764_26559907.1215577989400" References: <13426df10807080933u21d3b562ud3f6626346b999cd@mail.gmail.com> <5905ec798728589930ed2612ef5fcfa7@terzarima.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0969742-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_764_26559907.1215577989400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline x: proc options(main); put skip list('What's Wrong with PR1ME?'); put skip; end x; /* sorry, couldn't resist */ I mean, you make it sound like the wonderful combination of Fortran IV, PL/I (PL/1G, PL/P & SPL), Pascal & BASIC (BASICV too) weren't enough! Sheesh, this is perfectly resonable: OK, plp B_test0.pli [PLP rev 19.2] BEGIN PHASE-1 BEGIN PHASE-3 0001 ERRORS (PL/P rev 19.2) MAXIMUM ERROR SEVERITY LEVEL=3 TRANSLATION FAILED. ER, Ok, ok, I'll stop. Honest. On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software > > tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier > > for people to consider using the real thing. > > yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, > GCOS, ... > which didn't do all that much for you. now the underlying system has all > the fun. > (unless you need to program it.) > > > -- "By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty famine. All things change. Air penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called incense." "Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre." "This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures" -- Heraclitus ------=_Part_764_26559907.1215577989400 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline x: proc options(main);
 put skip list('What's Wrong with PR1ME?');
 put skip;
end x;
/* sorry, couldn't resist */
I mean, you make it sound like the wonderful combination of Fortran IV, PL/I (PL/1G, PL/P & SPL), Pascal & BASIC (BASICV too) weren't enough!
Sheesh, this is perfectly resonable:
OK, plp B_test0.pli
[PLP rev 19.2]
BEGIN PHASE-1
BEGIN PHASE-3
0001 ERRORS  (PL/P  rev 19.2)
MAXIMUM ERROR SEVERITY LEVEL=3
TRANSLATION FAILED.
ER,

Ok, ok, I'll stop. Honest.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
> tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
> for people to consider using the real thing.

yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, GCOS, ...
which didn't do all that much for you.  now the underlying system has all the fun.
(unless you need to program it.)





--
"By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty famine. All things change. Air penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called incense."

"Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre."

"This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures"
-- Heraclitus ------=_Part_764_26559907.1215577989400-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60807082144w5abc646ah5dfd2f7314c87832@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:44:22 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <13426df10807082043x2d698775g78f1e9b820d17831@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_29750_21278651.1215578662473" References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10807082043x2d698775g78f1e9b820d17831@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0a43208-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_29750_21278651.1215578662473 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, ron minnich wrote: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen > wrote: > > > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or > > RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end. > > > > unless we all get smart and go into banking. > > ron > > I could have been a lumberjack. ------=_Part_29750_21278651.1215578662473 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:

> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
> RedHat behaves weirdly.  It really never does end.
>

unless we all get smart and go into banking.

ron

I could have been a lumberjack. ------=_Part_29750_21278651.1215578662473-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48760762.3070602@proweb.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:58:10 +0100 From: matt User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20080304) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e11722ae-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Skip Tavakkolian wrote: > vxlinux under plan9 will be useful, but only to us 9fans. > Isn't that good enough reason? Russ Cox > Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use > Linux but must use Plan 9. I am sure such people exist, > but I feel no sympathy toward them. ;-) I don't ask for sympathy but having a Linux that ran on Plan 9 would be a useful tool. I need to have Gimp knocking about or an IMAP client for Gbs of mail. Do you think the task would be Herculean ? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@9fans.net Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? From: "Russ Cox" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:47:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48760762.3070602@proweb.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: e11c7a74-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I don't ask for sympathy but having a Linux that ran on Plan 9 would be > a useful tool. I need to have Gimp knocking about or an IMAP client for > Gbs of mail. If linuxemu can run Opera, I would imagine you can use it to run Gimp too, with some work. If you want an imap client, you could compile the p9p upas/fs which can easily handle large remote IMAP mailboxes. > Do you think the task would be Herculean ? Procrustean or Sisyphean, yes. Herculean, no. Russ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:01:17 -0400 To: mattmobile@proweb.co.uk, 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <48760762.3070602@proweb.co.uk> References: <48760762.3070602@proweb.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e123074a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > ... or an IMAP client for Gbs of mail. not for much longer. there is a testing version of upas + imap4d on sources (/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/nupas) that might work for you. i have not changed the upas/fs interface so older versions of ned, Mail and imap4d continue to work, but i have included modified versions of ned, Mail and imap4d that are careful not to force upas/fs to read or download every message, as the standard clients are wont to do. to that end mail directories (mdirs) are supported with one unix from line + verbatim message per file. you'll need the all of nupas installed if you intend to use mdirs for mail delivery, but the modified upas/fs and clients are all you'll need for big remote mailboxes. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:03:23 -0400 To: rsc@swtch.com, 9fans@9fans.net Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Message-ID: <4ebdda7ae38da29c42b6e1a049399dd1@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> References: <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: e12ad1a0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > upas + imap4d on sources (/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/nupas) wrong path. /n/sources/contrib/quanstro/src/nupas - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807100818g491f676fwf5f2256f710f0583@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:31 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48760762.3070602@proweb.co.uk> <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e13b6038-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Russ Cox wrote: > If linuxemu can run Opera, I would imagine you can > use it to run Gimp too, with some work. If you want > an imap client, you could compile the p9p upas/fs > which can easily handle large remote IMAP mailboxes. speaking of which, did Cinap's fixes for the gs segment make it in so we have thread local storage a la linux now? > >> Do you think the task would be Herculean ? > > Procrustean or Sisyphean, yes. Herculean, no. > it's all greek to me, but I think it's just plain crazy :-) ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net From: Charles Forsyth Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:33:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <13426df10807100818g491f676fwf5f2256f710f0583@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e1757caa-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > speaking of which, did Cinap's fixes for the gs segment make it in so > we have thread local storage a la linux now? plan 9 provides that portably as the stack segment, and provides some reserved space in it via _privates [see exec(2)]. (it might be helpful to have some conventions for its use.) or did you mean in linuxemu? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807100818g491f676fwf5f2256f710f0583@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e17b40ea-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote: >> speaking of which, did Cinap's fixes for the gs segment make it in so >> we have thread local storage a la linux now? > > > or did you mean in linuxemu? yes. linuxemu needed a kernel change IIRC and I was wondering if that was in. ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:25:13 +0200 From: cinap_lenrek@gmx.de In-Reply-To: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-lttnstlvybpnzuytgbtpzwtoeh" Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e1bbfc7a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-lttnstlvybpnzuytgbtpzwtoeh Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok, here is the thing... Here are 2 versions of linux libc tls and notls. (Current linux distries just ship with the tls version i think, but here may be exceptions) TLS is a libpthread thing that is heavily wired together with libc on linux. (just do an ldd on something like ls) TLS uses the two free segment registers %FS and %GS as a way for a thread to access its thread local storage area. (the parent allocates some memory and sets up an segment descriptor that points/translates to this memory (it makes set_thread_area() syscall todo this) to implement this syscall, i needed a way to change entries in the global descriptor table in the kernel. here is some experimental driver (/dev/tls) but i'm not sure if its correct. also it buys you not very mutch to have it yet, because the new pthread library also needs a futex implementation to be usefull. the old notls libc works without that syscall and doesnt need any modification to the plan9 kernel. but... i think in the near future TLS support is important and for that i need some kernel support to change segment descriptors on a process basis. If i understand vx correctly, it also needs a way to change segment descriptors and even needs to be able to change its %DS, %CS, %SS registers to it. cinap --upas-lttnstlvybpnzuytgbtpzwtoeh Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <9fans-bounces+cinap_lenrek=gmx.de@9fans.net> X-Flags: 0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to cinap_lenrek@gmx.de Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2008 16:43:16 -0000 Received: from gouda.swtch.com (EHLO gouda.swtch.com) [67.207.142.3] by mx0.gmx.net (mx076) with SMTP; 10 Jul 2008 18:43:16 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=gouda.swtch.com) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <9fans-bounces@9fans.net>) id 1KGz89-0004jG-2G; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:36:29 +0000 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KGz83-0004j5-Nn for 9fans@9fans.net; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:36:24 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so1418758fga.28 for <9fans@9fans.net>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.52.6 with SMTP id z6mr8881665fgz.18.1215707782263; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.57.20 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807100818g491f676fwf5f2256f710f0583@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? X-BeenThere: 9fans@9fans.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.9fans.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net Errors-To: 9fans-bounces+cinap_lenrek=gmx.de@9fans.net X-GMX-Antivirus: -1 (not scanned, may not use virus scanner) X-GMX-Htest: 0.71 X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam) X-GMX-UID: FwpDeXgCbUkpMMl0kWgnyvVkZ2hlN0ps On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote: >> speaking of which, did Cinap's fixes for the gs segment make it in so >> we have thread local storage a la linux now? > > > or did you mean in linuxemu? yes. linuxemu needed a kernel change IIRC and I was wondering if that was in. ron --upas-lttnstlvybpnzuytgbtpzwtoeh-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807101250kf52373dufd2423bad1ae6586@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:50:57 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e244cb7c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 futex? so do we need a futtocks device? ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4877238C.5040808@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:10:36 +0200 From: Kernel Panic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10807101250kf52373dufd2423bad1ae6586@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <13426df10807101250kf52373dufd2423bad1ae6586@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e33ed4fa-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ron minnich wrote: > futex? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex > so do we need a futtocks device? > i think this can be implemented without any additional devices... wtf?! > ron > cinap From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807110912y680403a6g441ff052c74e4a6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:12:42 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <4877238C.5040808@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10807101250kf52373dufd2423bad1ae6586@mail.gmail.com> <4877238C.5040808@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e3a78586-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Kernel Panic wrote: > ron minnich wrote: >> >> futex? >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex >> >> so do we need a futtocks device? >> > > i think this can be implemented without > any additional devices... wtf? what the futex? I was mainly joking. I was dumbfounded to see the futex cancer spreading everywhere. ron From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:59:15 -0400 To: ben@flyingwalrus.net, 9fans@9fans.net, quanstro@coraid.com Message-ID: <20d10285eb2e719a0a962cb4561da74f@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20080710134615.50C541E8C26@holo.morphisms.net> <4ebdda7ae38da29c42b6e1a049399dd1@coraid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e3eac558-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu Jul 10 15:06:09 EDT 2008, ben@flyingwalrus.net wrote: > am very interested in nupas, as i have a truely insane number of mails > in my imap store. > > when i use nupas/fs to mount my imap account, i get the following: > > term% nupas/fs -f/imaps/imap.mailhenge.com/ben@hosthenge.com > imap4mbox /imaps/imap.mailhenge.com/ben@hosthenge.com any luck with the changes? - erik