From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <973562.76924.qm@web30906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:35:16 -0700 From: rbnsw-plan9@yahoo.com.au To: 9fans@9fans.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] RFS alternatives (Was: Living with Plan 9) Topicbox-Message-UUID: f361f3e6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --- On Tue, 21/6/11, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: ... >> Um, does v9fs remote Linux devices? I find it hard to >> imagine it would remote ioctls but it makes sense *nix to >> *nix. >> >=20 > Depends on how you configure it.=A0 There is a nodevmap > option to the v9fs mount which will instruct it to just access=20 > the remote devices directly instead of just mapping their major/minor=20 > numbers to local devices.=A0 You are correct in your imagining that we > don't go anywhere near ioctls with a 10 foot pole.=A0 However, many thing= s > "just work" without ioctls these days. >=20 Thanks for the info, but the devices encumbered with ioctls are the tricky = ones and even if they can be sorted out I'm sure there are some other traps= out there. Too bad there are no RFS gurus lurking here to offer their wisd= om on remoting devices. I have a sneaking suspicion few people would have b= othered, since the few devices worth remoting back then were easily handled= by rsh/rcmd. Did RFS make it beyond SVR4? > > > > That just leaves my issues with X. > > >=20 > Actually, its a bit worse than that.=A0 The physical > network devices aren't file system accessible anymore,=20 Actually, I'd blotted out of my mind all knowledges of STREAMs devices and = the related horror of TLI programming until you reminded me. > so you'd need to remote them as a service (via Inferno or something) or > use the tap device and remote that and hope that it doesn't require ioctl= s (and I think it might). >=20 Oh, I'm not worried about remoting network interfaces. I'm fine with packet= forwarding and can live with NAT for now. However, it reminds me of anothe= r point in Plan 9's favour that the introductory papers should be updated t= o be more explicit about - NATs are unnecessary in a pure Plan 9 deployment= . Unfortunately, neither Plan 9 routers or decent alternatives to NAT such = as RSIP widely available.=A0=20 =20 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -eric > Andrew P.S. There's spammers subscribed to this list. Hi there, friends of Khalifa= .