Hi Jeff, thanks:


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> wrote:

> Rubén,
>
> For better, or worse, nothing really serves HFS+ these days.  Apple's
> transitioning from AFP to SMB2 when sharing files.  I can't say I'm
> disappointed that AFP is finally going away.
>
> Until someone writes an HFSX fs device support you won't be able to mount
> a drive formatted under OSX.  You could mount a FAT device, within reason.
>
> I've had trouble getting Plan 9's NFS server to serve up bits that OSX
> client can actually use.  Someone else's milage may vary.  Same goes for
> CIFS.
>
> Now if you're trying to exportfs to a Mac there are several levels of pain
> you can go through:
>
>  1) mac9p -- ask fsb for more details (or google mac9p and find his hg repo
> or the github fork)
>

Hmmm... The use at your own risk doesn't sound really encouraging... I'm
wary of kexts, even installing fuse from brew was a little over the edge.
If it wasn't because I have used sshfs in the past and found it almost
indispensable in most cases, I would have skipped it.


>  2) cifs -- read the aquarela man page
>

Did yesterday, wasn't convinced and thought nfs would be better...


>  3) 9pfuse  -- I've not tested this with recent fuse versions
>

The pipe essentially breaks after ~30 seconds with the latest version of
osxfuse, unknown reason (no matter how many d's I add to 9import). I can
read the remote drive during this time, access and create files. But when
it dies, it dies "hard" so I need to remove the tmp/ns.file in Mac OS,
eject the fuse volume, etc. Painful, and anyway, not that useful.


>  4) nfs -- this shouldn't be painful, but it is
>

That's the impression I got from the man pages :(


>
> But I usually find that connecting to my Plan 9 cpu servers through
> drawterm or Inferno tends to be the best bridge|least pain (though mac9p
> tends to be a really good option).
>

Drawterm works like a charm (some day I will compile and try the iOS
version...), and I can use it with cp without any problems, everything
works as expected. But I wanted a solution that was relatively
straightforward so that we (me and my SO) could access the drive without
needing (relatively) complicated steps.

I don't know what I'll do from this point on, since this was a good
"reasoned" way to justify an always on device with Plan9... Now I think it
will be a device with Raspbian or Plan9 depending on what I want to do...
And it will probably mean Raspbian more often than not (so I can use APL.)

Ruben


>
> -jas
>
> On Mar 9, 2014, at 3:39 AM, Rubén Berenguel <ruben@mostlymaths.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve. In any case, I can't serve HFS+ serving files because P9
> can't access them. But I could serve a FAT device.
>
> I finally managed to exportfs the drive, I'm not sure if due to a
> combination of things in /lib/namespace or the -t flag in listen1 did the
> trick, or the combination of the two. I was happy for around 30 seconds,
> which is the time 9pfuse (9import) took to issue a "broken pipe" on my
> terminal, killing the connection to my remote disk. Pretty fed up of
> setting up a remote drive by now.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
>
>> > I want my
>> > Plan9 host to serve a HFS+ drive.
>>
>> If you want to serve files (rather than  a block device) from plan9 to
>> a mac then plan9 has an nfs server and, two cifs servers available.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>
>