From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <992829.87389.qm@web30906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <992829.87389.qm@web30906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Eric Van Hensbergen Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:51:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: rbnsw-plan9@yahoo.com.au, Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> 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: f3428664-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, wrote: > > --- On Wed, 8/6/11, I wrote in part: > >> I am old enough to remember RFS the Remote File Sharing >> Protocol on SVR4 that offered access to remote devices, but >> I don't have that and I'm not aware of whether there are any >> distributed file=A0 protocols freely available for *nix >> that do that. > > Um, does v9fs remote Linux devices? I find it hard to imagine it would re= mote ioctls but it makes sense *nix to *nix. > Depends on how you configure it. There is a nodevmap option to the v9fs mount which will instruct it to just access the remote devices directly instead of just mapping their major/minor numbers to local devices. You are correct in your imagining that we don't go anywhere near ioctls with a 10 foot pole. However, many things "just work" without ioctls these days. > > That just leaves my issues with X. > Actually, its a bit worse than that. The physical network devices aren't file system accessible anymore, 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 ioctls (and I think it might). -eric