Re: [9fans] 8c question

[Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>]

On 7/11/05, Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> 
> > Oi - my gut is that this sounds wrong.  What would make more sense is
> > for #X to look more like devsrv, with the virtual channels representing.
> > Then you could mount /dev/xen/dom0 /n/dom0 and then bind as you like.
> 
> Can those channels correspond to the current channels that talk via fifo
> queue to in-kernel linux devices (the so-called backend devices)?
> 

Yeah, well -- sorta.  You probably have a better understanding of the
way Xen does stuff than I do.  I guess in the current context that is
exactly what they would correspond to, but in a 9P-based world, you
would only need a single channel.  You would mount the exported
private namespace containing the devices allocated to your partition
over that channel (instead of individually mounting disk, network,
etc.)

I haven't fully thought through how this would extend across a cluster
yet - but I think a bridging I/O partition would "just work".  Not
sure if I would have "cluster" channels or whether the I/O partition
would mount from other servers and then re-export the resources.

       -eric