[9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi,

is anyone able to run rio well in plan9 cpu/auth server on vmware fusion 2.0?

i am able to run it in stand alone mode. but once i switch to cpu/auth
server mode, i only see black screen. then i am able to open new
windows, use it to some extent but things get clumsy. i dont see the
window borders, etc. what is the one that is not running properly
here? is it rio?

any clues?

thanks
dharani

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Russ Cox]

echo hwaccel off >'#v/vgactl'

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Jeff Sickel]

Or better yet, use drawterm to a vmware based Plan 9 stand alone CPU
server.  Copy/paste works, rio is responsive, and the VMWare host
never needs to enter graphics mode.  Don't configure the vm for
multiple cpus though, that doesn't work so well (but virtualizing
multiple cpus doesn't really work well in Parallels or VirtualBox
either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers).  Drawterm will go full screen if
you like.

Whatever virtualized graphics chipset VMWare is providing really does
not work well w/ Plan 9.  I've also found it doesn't work so well with
any other OS I've tried (haven't tried Windows), so you're milage may
vary.

Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can write
a new driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work,
I'd say stop trying to make Plan 9 do something it won't be able to do
well on VMWare.  In fact, take a quick look at VMWare's knowledge base
support site as there are plenty of references to poor graphics
performance even for their targeted guest OS.

-jas

On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan wrote:

> hi,
>
> is anyone able to run rio well in plan9 cpu/auth server on vmware
> fusion 2.0?
>
> i am able to run it in stand alone mode. but once i switch to cpu/auth
> server mode, i only see black screen. then i am able to open new
> windows, use it to some extent but things get clumsy. i dont see the
> window borders, etc. what is the one that is not running properly
> here? is it rio?
>
> any clues?
>
> thanks
> dharani
>
>

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Uriel]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
> Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can write a new
> driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work,

I'm no VMWare fan and their policy for releasing documentation used to
be beyond idiotic, but please lets stop spreading this nonsense about
NDAs?

From: http://www.vmware.com/resources/opensource/projects.html

"The video driver was one of the first pieces of software ever
released as open source by VMware - back in 2002"

And video is quite damned fast if you disable acceleration, certainly
much better than vesa on most modern video cards.

As for drawterm, can we kill it already? 9vx and Inferno are much
better alternatives..

uriel

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi russ,

this works. thanks a lot.

regards
dharani

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
> echo hwaccel off >'#v/vgactl'
>
>

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[erik quanstrom]

> As for drawterm, can we kill it already? 9vx and Inferno are much
> better alternatives..

your comments remind me non specificly of a monty python
skit with clease as the customer and idle as shopkeeper.

clease:	hi, i'd like a cheese, please.
idle:	no cheese today sir!
clease:	no cheese?
idle:	no, perhaps you'd like a fish?  maybe a box of rocks?
	they're much better you know.
clease:	what?
idle:	we discontinued the cheese.  this fish
	is much better.
clease:	are you mad?
idle:	so which will it be, fish or a box of rocks?
	....

- erik

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Jeff Sickel]

On Dec 28, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Uriel wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-
> callosum.com> wrote:
>> Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can
>> write a new
>> driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work,
>
> I'm no VMWare fan and their policy for releasing documentation used to
> be beyond idiotic, but please lets stop spreading this nonsense about
> NDAs?
>
> From: http://www.vmware.com/resources/opensource/projects.html
>
> "The video driver was one of the first pieces of software ever
> released as open source by VMware - back in 2002"
>
> And video is quite damned fast if you disable acceleration, certainly
> much better than vesa on most modern video cards.

Not with VMware Fusion it isn't.  Mostly because you get a bunch of
garbage being drawn/hidden when trying to get Plan 9's video drivers
working.  So it's mostly useless.

I've got a great idea Uriel: why don't you take that open sourced XORG
video driver and get it working for Plan 9.  Though if I were a
betting man, I'd say you'll find that that free code from VMware won't
quite do what is needed on their Fusion product--it's a different
beast from their versions for Linux and Windows.

> As for drawterm, can we kill it already? 9vx and Inferno are much
> better alternatives..

I disagree.  With drawterm I get copy/paste via snarf between my host
OS and my Plan 9 instance running in the vm . And as a bonus, it helps
distribute everything quite well: great access through /mnt/term etc.

9vx on OSX is very slow with anything that hits the native filesystem--
which ends up being almost everything I use it for: acme, sam, man,
8c, ...

Inferno still has a few issues that still make it a little less than
optimal for use when connecting to my Plan 9 cpu servers.  Maybe once
a cleaned up wm is in place so that I can do what drawterm does well:
resizable window and good toggle between full screen.

Until then, drawterm is still the best program to use when I want to
do something on Plan 9 and I'm not sitting at a native terminal.

-jas

p.s.  to appease erik's tendencies to get good quotes going, here's a
little one from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"We'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms
everywhere ... and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang
the rocks together, guys."

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[lucio]

> but virtualizing
> multiple cpus doesn't really work well in Parallels or VirtualBox
> either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers

I'm using both physical cpus on my ESX-based Plan 9 server.  Should I
be expecting erratic behaviour?

++L

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> but virtualizing
>> multiple cpus doesn't really work well in Parallels or VirtualBox
>> either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers
>
> I'm using both physical cpus on my ESX-based Plan 9 server.  Should I
> be expecting erratic behaviour?

i've had a 4-vcpu vm running xp on a poweredge+esx (2×quad core) for
over a month in operational use.  in my experience esx does a good job
of scheduling multiple cpu's; the vm is running 20 instances of a
cpu-intensive application.

http://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-4960

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Uriel]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
> Not with VMware Fusion it isn't.  Mostly because you get a bunch of garbage
> being drawn/hidden when trying to get Plan 9's video drivers working.  So
> it's mostly useless.

In that case I don't think you can blame VMware for lack of
documentation, and instead you should blame Apple for building such a
lousy and pathetically documented OS. (Actually I have watched an
interesting presentation by the folks that built Fusion on the wonders
of how clunky and outright schizoid OS X internals are).


> I've got a great idea Uriel: why don't you take that open sourced XORG video
> driver and get it working for Plan 9.  Though if I were a betting man, I'd
> say you'll find that that free code from VMware won't quite do what is
> needed on their Fusion product--it's a different beast from their versions
> for Linux and Windows.

I have a better idea: get a host OS that doesn't suck so much, Windows
for example.


>> As for drawterm, can we kill it already? 9vx and Inferno are much
>> better alternatives..
>
> I disagree.  With drawterm I get copy/paste via snarf between my host OS and
> my Plan 9 instance running in the vm . And as a bonus, it helps distribute
> everything quite well: great access through /mnt/term etc.

You get both features in 9vx and Inferno.


> 9vx on OSX is very slow with anything that hits the native filesystem--which
> ends up being almost everything I use it for: acme, sam, man, 8c, ...

Got to love OSX...


> Inferno still has a few issues that still make it a little less than optimal
> for use when connecting to my Plan 9 cpu servers.  Maybe once a cleaned up
> wm is in place so that I can do what drawterm does well: resizable window
> and good toggle between full screen.

I certainly agree Inferno has many issues, but maybe if more people
used it rather than waste resources on a dead end like drawterm things
would improve.

uriel

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Skip Tavakkolian]

diversity is a good strategy in nature; plan9 is not above it.

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Jeff Sickel]

On Dec 28, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:

> diversity is a good strategy in nature; plan9 is not above it.

Windows free for 15+ years and loving it.  Though there are a few OS'
I've used in the past that I kind of regret, the exposure to non-x86
hardware has been an overall good experience.

Now onto more interesting projects w/ Plan 9 and Inferno... like
turning on that little email filter I keep forgetting to do...

-jas

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi jeff,

after a couple of hiccups, i made my plan9 installation to become a
cpu/auth server as well. i am also able to use graphics screen with
1280x768 resolution. the graphics screen is good enough for me so far.

on the drawterm stuff, yes, i keep using it and it is pretty good. the
only problem with drawterm is inferno graphics screen performance. it
is really bad. you have to use it to believe it. since i use
inferno/inferno-acme most of the time, i think i cant use drawterm.
otherwise, drawterm is really cool.

that apart, i think your suggestion is valid and good, just use VM as
auth/cpu server and do the rest with drawterm.

thanks
dharani

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
> Or better yet, use drawterm to a vmware based Plan 9 stand alone CPU server.
>  Copy/paste works, rio is responsive, and the VMWare host never needs to
> enter graphics mode.  Don't configure the vm for multiple cpus though, that
> doesn't work so well (but virtualizing multiple cpus doesn't really work
> well in Parallels or VirtualBox either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers).
>  Drawterm will go full screen if you like.
>
> Whatever virtualized graphics chipset VMWare is providing really does not
> work well w/ Plan 9.  I've also found it doesn't work so well with any other
> OS I've tried (haven't tried Windows), so you're milage may vary.
>
> Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can write a new
> driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work, I'd say stop
> trying to make Plan 9 do something it won't be able to do well on VMWare.
>  In fact, take a quick look at VMWare's knowledge base support site as there
> are plenty of references to poor graphics performance even for their
> targeted guest OS.
>
> -jas
>
> On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> is anyone able to run rio well in plan9 cpu/auth server on vmware fusion
>> 2.0?
>>
>> i am able to run it in stand alone mode. but once i switch to cpu/auth
>> server mode, i only see black screen. then i am able to open new
>> windows, use it to some extent but things get clumsy. i dont see the
>> window borders, etc. what is the one that is not running properly
>> here? is it rio?
>>
>> any clues?
>>
>> thanks
>> dharani
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Uriel]

If you use 9vx as your terminal, you can run inferno/acme locally,
which might improve things a bit, although it still leaves a lot to be
desired.

The strange thing with drawterm+inferno is that even video playback
over drawterm seems to work better than the painful redrawing of wm
apps.

Perhaps having inferno apps use the Plan 9 (or drawterm) draw device
directly would help, but I seem to remember Charles didn't think it
would make a big difference, maybe somebody should test it and see if
we can track down where the slowdown comes from...

uriel

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
<vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi jeff,
>
> after a couple of hiccups, i made my plan9 installation to become a
> cpu/auth server as well. i am also able to use graphics screen with
> 1280x768 resolution. the graphics screen is good enough for me so far.
>
> on the drawterm stuff, yes, i keep using it and it is pretty good. the
> only problem with drawterm is inferno graphics screen performance. it
> is really bad. you have to use it to believe it. since i use
> inferno/inferno-acme most of the time, i think i cant use drawterm.
> otherwise, drawterm is really cool.
>
> that apart, i think your suggestion is valid and good, just use VM as
> auth/cpu server and do the rest with drawterm.
>
> thanks
> dharani
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
>> Or better yet, use drawterm to a vmware based Plan 9 stand alone CPU server.
>>  Copy/paste works, rio is responsive, and the VMWare host never needs to
>> enter graphics mode.  Don't configure the vm for multiple cpus though, that
>> doesn't work so well (but virtualizing multiple cpus doesn't really work
>> well in Parallels or VirtualBox either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers).
>>  Drawterm will go full screen if you like.
>>
>> Whatever virtualized graphics chipset VMWare is providing really does not
>> work well w/ Plan 9.  I've also found it doesn't work so well with any other
>> OS I've tried (haven't tried Windows), so you're milage may vary.
>>
>> Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can write a new
>> driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work, I'd say stop
>> trying to make Plan 9 do something it won't be able to do well on VMWare.
>>  In fact, take a quick look at VMWare's knowledge base support site as there
>> are plenty of references to poor graphics performance even for their
>> targeted guest OS.
>>
>> -jas
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> is anyone able to run rio well in plan9 cpu/auth server on vmware fusion
>>> 2.0?
>>>
>>> i am able to run it in stand alone mode. but once i switch to cpu/auth
>>> server mode, i only see black screen. then i am able to open new
>>> windows, use it to some extent but things get clumsy. i dont see the
>>> window borders, etc. what is the one that is not running properly
>>> here? is it rio?
>>>
>>> any clues?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> dharani
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[lucio]

> The strange thing with drawterm+inferno is that even video playback
> over drawterm seems to work better than the painful redrawing of wm
> apps.

But inferno under drawterm seems superfluous to me.  It can't be
totally impractical to run inferno in parallel with drawterm on the
same platform rather than on the Plan 9 server.  There may be some
disadvantages, but it must be possible to overcome them.

++L

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi uriel,

dont know why but actually inferno graphics on 9vx is slow as well.

but then, i can also run inferno natively on mac os x, right? only
thing i will be missing is a single screen in which i will have both
inferno and plan9.

thanks
dharani

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Uriel <lost.goblin@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you use 9vx as your terminal, you can run inferno/acme locally,
> which might improve things a bit, although it still leaves a lot to be
> desired.
>
> The strange thing with drawterm+inferno is that even video playback
> over drawterm seems to work better than the painful redrawing of wm
> apps.
>
> Perhaps having inferno apps use the Plan 9 (or drawterm) draw device
> directly would help, but I seem to remember Charles didn't think it
> would make a big difference, maybe somebody should test it and see if
> we can track down where the slowdown comes from...
>
> uriel
>
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
> <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi jeff,
>>
>> after a couple of hiccups, i made my plan9 installation to become a
>> cpu/auth server as well. i am also able to use graphics screen with
>> 1280x768 resolution. the graphics screen is good enough for me so far.
>>
>> on the drawterm stuff, yes, i keep using it and it is pretty good. the
>> only problem with drawterm is inferno graphics screen performance. it
>> is really bad. you have to use it to believe it. since i use
>> inferno/inferno-acme most of the time, i think i cant use drawterm.
>> otherwise, drawterm is really cool.
>>
>> that apart, i think your suggestion is valid and good, just use VM as
>> auth/cpu server and do the rest with drawterm.
>>
>> thanks
>> dharani
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:
>>> Or better yet, use drawterm to a vmware based Plan 9 stand alone CPU server.
>>>  Copy/paste works, rio is responsive, and the VMWare host never needs to
>>> enter graphics mode.  Don't configure the vm for multiple cpus though, that
>>> doesn't work so well (but virtualizing multiple cpus doesn't really work
>>> well in Parallels or VirtualBox either, nor on VMWare's ESX servers).
>>>  Drawterm will go full screen if you like.
>>>
>>> Whatever virtualized graphics chipset VMWare is providing really does not
>>> work well w/ Plan 9.  I've also found it doesn't work so well with any other
>>> OS I've tried (haven't tried Windows), so you're milage may vary.
>>>
>>> Unless you've got some NDA from VMWare in place so that you can write a new
>>> driver for Plan 9 to use whatever graphics chipset will work, I'd say stop
>>> trying to make Plan 9 do something it won't be able to do well on VMWare.
>>>  In fact, take a quick look at VMWare's knowledge base support site as there
>>> are plenty of references to poor graphics performance even for their
>>> targeted guest OS.
>>>
>>> -jas
>>>
>>> On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> is anyone able to run rio well in plan9 cpu/auth server on vmware fusion
>>>> 2.0?
>>>>
>>>> i am able to run it in stand alone mode. but once i switch to cpu/auth
>>>> server mode, i only see black screen. then i am able to open new
>>>> windows, use it to some extent but things get clumsy. i dont see the
>>>> window borders, etc. what is the one that is not running properly
>>>> here? is it rio?
>>>>
>>>> any clues?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> dharani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] rio in cpu/auth server in vmware fusion 2.0

[lucio]

> but then, i can also run inferno natively on mac os x, right? only
> thing i will be missing is a single screen in which i will have both
> inferno and plan9.

I don't use Inferno as much as I ought to, but whenever I have an
Inferno screen open under Plan 9 I feel orphaned because my Plan 9
screen is obscured.  I don't seem to have the same trouble with
Windows or Unix :-)

++L