Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Anselm R. Garbe]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
> Does the wiki have instructions on how to make UBUNTU (Dapper Drake)
> speak v9fs?  It seems to me that I need a recompiled kernel and I'm
> not familiar enough with the procedure to upgrade the system at that
> level.

You don't need to do anything, just

; modprobe 9p2000

or

; modprobe 9p

should work fine...

Regards,
-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://suckless.org/~arg/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On 12/12/06, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
> > Does the wiki have instructions on how to make UBUNTU (Dapper Drake)
> > speak v9fs?  It seems to me that I need a recompiled kernel and I'm
> > not familiar enough with the procedure to upgrade the system at that
> > level.
>
> You don't need to do anything, just
>
> ; modprobe 9p2000
>
> or
>
> ; modprobe 9p
>

Default Dapper has an older, "buggier" version of v9fs (2.6.15).  Edgy
has a much more reasonable version (2.6.17).

            -eric

[9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Lucio De Re]

Does the wiki have instructions on how to make UBUNTU (Dapper Drake)
speak v9fs?  It seems to me that I need a recompiled kernel and I'm
not familiar enough with the procedure to upgrade the system at that
level.

++L

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> Default Dapper has an older, "buggier" version of v9fs (2.6.15).  Edgy
> has a much more reasonable version (2.6.17).

Edgy+v9fs has been reliable.  i have had a r/b client (uses v9fs) running
continuously for a couple of weeks now.

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[csant]

> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
>> Does the wiki have instructions on how to make UBUNTU (Dapper Drake)
>> speak v9fs?  It seems to me that I need a recompiled kernel and I'm
>> not familiar enough with the procedure to upgrade the system at that
>> level.
>
> You don't need to do anything, just
>
> ; modprobe 9p2000
>
> or
>
> ; modprobe 9p
>
> should work fine...

Wow, does Ubuntu come with a 9p kernel module by default? That's sweet...
/c

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On 12/12/06, csant <csant@csant.info> wrote:
>
> Wow, does Ubuntu come with a 9p kernel module by default? That's sweet...
> /c

all part of the virtue of being in the mainline kernel.  We probably
should be more diligent about backporting fixes to popular kernel
releases (such as dapper), but I doubt we have enough users yet to
justify distribution maintainers to pull them.  Similar goes for
getting 9p servers in by default.

          -eric

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[csant]

>> Wow, does Ubuntu come with a 9p kernel module by default? That's  
>> sweet...
>
> all part of the virtue of being in the mainline kernel.  We probably
> should be more diligent about backporting fixes to popular kernel
> releases (such as dapper), but I doubt we have enough users yet to
> justify distribution maintainers to pull them.  Similar goes for
> getting 9p servers in by default.

The latter point is worth being addressed: currently it is all but  
straightforward to set up a proper 9p filesystem (with authentication),  
mainly due to the lack of a server. As long as there is no server readily  
available 9p will have trouble gaining any ground on Linux beyond Plan 9  
users running also Linux. I therefore very much look forward to your  
planned efforts for next year to work on a server.

/c

Re: [9fans] UBUNTU and v9fs

[Latchesar Ionkov]

There are many 9P servers coming with p9p. You can also write your  
own servers either using p9p or lib{s,n}pfs.

	Lucho

On Dec 12, 2006, at 11:58 AM, csant wrote:

>>> Wow, does Ubuntu come with a 9p kernel module by default? That's  
>>> sweet...
>>
>> all part of the virtue of being in the mainline kernel.  We probably
>> should be more diligent about backporting fixes to popular kernel
>> releases (such as dapper), but I doubt we have enough users yet to
>> justify distribution maintainers to pull them.  Similar goes for
>> getting 9p servers in by default.
>
> The latter point is worth being addressed: currently it is all but  
> straightforward to set up a proper 9p filesystem (with  
> authentication), mainly due to the lack of a server. As long as  
> there is no server readily available 9p will have trouble gaining  
> any ground on Linux beyond Plan 9 users running also Linux. I  
> therefore very much look forward to your planned efforts for next  
> year to work on a server.
>
> /c