[9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Corey]

I'm thinking about going through another installation, and I'm wondering
whether there's usefulness in undertaking a standalone terminal install
using only kfs rather than fossil?  And if so, how is this currently done?

As far as I can tell, I'd want to use Erik's 9atom iso - which seems to
support Ken's fs (http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/index.html)? -
but the current install scripts only prompt for fossil or fossil+venti.

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Akshat Kumar]

I use kfs on a standalone Plan 9 box.
The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
processing power. kfs on the other hand
is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.

Plus, the code is beautiful.

The install procedure from CD involved
manually going through the install
commands. The install scripts are easy
to read and figure out.
Just make your partition and use the
install scripts as a guide for copying
stuff over from the CD onto kfs disk.

That's all to it.

Best,
ak


On 5/16/10, Corey <corey@bitworthy.net> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about going through another installation, and I'm wondering
> whether there's usefulness in undertaking a standalone terminal install
> using only kfs rather than fossil?  And if so, how is this currently done?
>
> As far as I can tell, I'd want to use Erik's 9atom iso - which seems to
> support Ken's fs (http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/index.html)? -
> but the current install scripts only prompt for fossil or fossil+venti.
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[erik quanstrom]

> I'm thinking about going through another installation, and I'm wondering
> whether there's usefulness in undertaking a standalone terminal install
> using only kfs rather than fossil?  And if so, how is this currently done?

there's currently no kfs/cwfs install option.  it's only my list of things to
do.

> As far as I can tell, I'd want to use Erik's 9atom iso - which seems to
> support Ken's fs (http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/index.html)? -
> but the current install scripts only prompt for fossil or fossil+venti.

remember that kfs != ken's fs != cwfs.  but they are all three strongly
related.  ken's fs stands apart in being a stand alone kernel with no
user space; it only make sense to provide an install option for the
other two.

- erik

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Corey]

On Saturday 15 May 2010 9:23:51 erik quanstrom wrote:
> there's currently no kfs/cwfs install option.  it's only my list of things
> to do.
>

Good to know, looking forward to when that's ready!

> remember that kfs != ken's fs
>

Cool thanks: I was indeed under the impression that they were the
same thing.

kfs is definitely what I'm after.

On Saturday 15 May 2010 9:19:30 Akshat Kumar wrote:
> I use kfs on a standalone Plan 9 box.
> The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
> some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
> processing power. kfs on the other hand
> is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.
>

Perfect.

> The install procedure from CD involved
> manually going through the install
> commands.
<snip>
> Just make your partition and use the
> install scripts as a guide for copying
> stuff over from the CD onto kfs disk.
>

Ok, cool - I'll try that; though I imagine my first attempt will
likely be a disaster...   <grin>

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Richard Miller]

> The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
> some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
> processing power. kfs on the other hand
> is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.

kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.

fossil (even without venti) gives you snapshots, which can be very
useful if you ever make mistakes.

For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
performance.

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[erik quanstrom]

> kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
> irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
> systems.

surely that's trivially fixable.

> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
> performance.

cwfs is the only user-mode fs that hits 3 out of 3 of the criteria
mentioned with no changes.

- erik

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[David Leimbach]

On Sunday, May 16, 2010, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>> kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
>> irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
>> systems.
>
> surely that's trivially fixable.
>
>> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
>> performance.
>
> cwfs is the only user-mode fs that hits 3 out of 3 of the criteria
> mentioned with no changes.
>
> - erik
>
>

Been meaning to try cwfs

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

On 16 May 2010, at 14:38, erik quanstrom wrote:

>> kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
>> irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
>> systems.
>
> surely that's trivially fixable.

i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the 64-
bit version of kfs supports 56-character file names.

>
>> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
>> performance.
>
> cwfs is the only user-mode fs that hits 3 out of 3 of the criteria
> mentioned with no changes.
>
> - erik
>

--
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[erik quanstrom]

> i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the 64-
> bit version of kfs supports 56-character file names.

there is no 64-bit version of kfs.

for ken's fs the default is 56.  you can set it to whatever you'd like.
the aoe-supporting version in my contrib and on 9atom is the same.

- erik

Re: [9fans] standalone terminal w/ kfs no fossil

[Akshat Kumar]

On 5/16/10, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
> performance.

I use it with these limitations (though, as is mentioned above,
the former can be trivially changed) almost daily. But I have
an interface to a (remote) Ken FS server for backups when
I need to make them. And usually some synthetic filesystem
can be used to deal with renaming the files. Yeah, there are
constraints there, but if it becomes too troublesome, see above.

Consider the sort of system mentioned. The performance turns
out to be so poor that these factors are not nearly enough
compensation. If there were happy endings... well, maybe, but
I still couldn't get work done.


Best,
ak