From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
From: "Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] hacking issue: memory resizing 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:41:09 +0200 .
	<600308d605091014412b6d1b71@mail.gmail.com> 
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:11:47 -0500
Message-Id: <20050911021426.SFRT12830.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@p1.stuart.org>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 87a70354-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

In message <600308d605091014412b6d1b71@mail.gmail.com>, Francisco Ballesteros w
rites:
>Are you using user-level programs called to synchronize?
>We are doing the same. Look for repl in the Plan B man page.

Yes.  It's a user-level file server in the spirit of cfs(4).
There are a few major differences, the first being the
persistance of the cache and a record of updates while
disconnected that is played back on reconnection.  The
other two differences were originally short-cuts to
simplify my life when working on what was originally
just an experiment.  One of them was to use files in
the local file system to store cache data and metadata
rather than using a raw partition.  The second was to
use ordinary system calls rather than pass the 9P requests
on to the file server directly.  This last one helps to
make it more flexible with respect to the server and
translated more easily to a Linux implementation.

To be honest, I haven't taken a look at the Plan B
design yet.  My only excuse is that it's on my to-do
list.

BLS