Re: [9fans] Glendix? - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] Glendix? - Plan9 ; On Nov 13, 2007 2:39 PM, Uriel wrote: > In any case, I think private namespaces are the dealbreaker, if you > want a Plan 9 environment, you need a kernel with private namespaces, > I wish the BSD people ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Re: [9fans] Glendix?

  1. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 13, 2007 2:39 PM, Uriel wrote:
    > In any case, I think private namespaces are the dealbreaker, if you
    > want a Plan 9 environment, you need a kernel with private namespaces,
    > I wish the BSD people would see how important they are, but then, I
    > feel sorry for the VFS they have to deal with...
    >
    > uriel


    I wish them to see that too. Feel sorry for me, then :]

  2. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    >> I wish the BSD people would see how important they are, but then, I
    >> feel sorry for the VFS they have to deal with...
    >>
    >> uriel


    really? i'd supposed the bsd vfs was better designed. isn't it? (i hadn't really looked at it
    for a years, so that wasn't rhetorical, i was really asking a question.)
    the linux one has lots of things in quite the wrong place
    because ... all decent files are on proper storage somewhere or they are damned!


  3. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 13, 2007 4:02 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > >> I wish the BSD people would see how important they are, but then, I
    > >> feel sorry for the VFS they have to deal with...
    > >>
    > >> uriel

    >
    > really? i'd supposed the bsd vfs was better designed. isn't it? (i hadn't really looked at it
    > for a years, so that wasn't rhetorical, i was really asking a question.)
    > the linux one has lots of things in quite the wrong place
    > because ... all decent files are on proper storage somewhere or they are damned!
    >


    since I'm writing o9fs for OpenBSD I've been dealing with it's VFS for
    the last months... the little I've read of linux VFS makes me thing
    BSD ones are easy stuff to deal with.

    iru

  4. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 13, 2007 10:02 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > >> I wish the BSD people would see how important they are, but then, I
    > >> feel sorry for the VFS they have to deal with...
    > >>
    > >> uriel

    >
    > really? i'd supposed the bsd vfs was better designed. isn't it? (i hadn't really looked at it
    > for a years, so that wasn't rhetorical, i was really asking a question.)
    > the linux one has lots of things in quite the wrong place
    > because ... all decent files are on proper storage somewhere or they are damned!
    >
    >


    I was of the impression the Linux VFS layer was set up to work well with NFS.

    I've no idea how the BSD VFS is these days. Mac OS X had stackable
    filesystems for a while, then Apple discouraged that practice
    (presumably due to overheads of doing so... so goodbye original
    implementation of unionfs).

    DragonflyBSD was going to have a VFS based on a message passing system
    of sorts... but not 9p :-). That would make things like FUSE pretty
    easy I'd think, or 9p for that matter.

    FreeBSD may still allow stackable filesystems, but it's hard to tell
    where they are because all the cool kids work on linux.

    Dave

  5. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    > DragonflyBSD was going to have a VFS based on a message passing system
    > of sorts... but not 9p :-). That would make things like FUSE pretty
    > easy I'd think, or 9p for that matter.
    >


    Not sure where they are yet but here's their idea:

    http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/goals.shtml#vfsmodel

    > Dave
    >


  6. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 13, 2007 8:04 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
    > I was of the impression the Linux VFS layer was set up to work well with NFS.
    >
    > I've no idea how the BSD VFS is these days. Mac OS X had stackable
    > filesystems for a while, then Apple discouraged that practice
    > (presumably due to overheads of doing so... so goodbye original
    > implementation of unionfs).
    >

    OpenBSD has dropped stackable filesystems long ago. The original BSD
    unionfs implementation was a nightmare. I started writing a trivial
    just for the sake of learning.

    > DragonflyBSD was going to have a VFS based on a message passing system
    > of sorts... but not 9p :-). That would make things like FUSE pretty
    > easy I'd think, or 9p for that matter.
    >


    I haven't touched the VFS itself, but with o9fs (9P filesystem for
    OpenBSD) one should be allow ed to write userland file servers (that's
    one of my personal goals).


    iru

  7. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 14, 2007 1:19 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:
    > I haven't touched the VFS itself, but with o9fs (9P filesystem for
    > OpenBSD) one should be allow ed to write userland file servers (that's
    > one of my personal goals).


    OpenBSD already has filesystems in userland. Look for mount_xfs
    (nothing to do with the SGI/linux thing). It is used by their afs client
    implementation.

  8. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On 11/14/07, R <0xef967c36@gmail.com> wrote:
    > OpenBSD already has filesystems in userland. Look for mount_xfs
    > (nothing to do with the SGI/linux thing). It is used by their afs client
    > implementation.
    >


    if you talking about /sbin/mount_xfs, it's just a mounter for the xfs
    filesystem. if you take a look at /sys/xfs you'll see what have to be
    done in the kernel.
    o9fs is the only thing residing in the kernel in my case. the userland
    filesystem/fileserver could be written entirely in userland with
    lib9pclient or libixp.

    iru

  9. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 14, 2007 1:44 PM, Iruata Souza wrote:
    > On 11/14/07, R <0xef967c36@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > OpenBSD already has filesystems in userland. Look for mount_xfs
    > > (nothing to do with the SGI/linux thing). It is used by their afs client
    > > implementation.
    > >

    >
    > if you talking about /sbin/mount_xfs, it's just a mounter for the xfs
    > filesystem. if you take a look at /sys/xfs you'll see what have to be
    > done in the kernel.


    No, you're wrong !

    You can write a new filesystem as a userland daemon - and have
    it communicate with the kernel via a /dev/xfs* device.
    There's no need for extra code in the kernel.

    In fact, that's exactly how afsd (the Andrew Filesystem client, part
    of the standard distribution) is working.

    This has become off-topic here, I excuse myself to other people
    not interested in OpenBSD details, etc ;-)

  10. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    * R <0xef967c36@gmail.com> [071114 13:19]:
    > On Nov 14, 2007 1:44 PM, Iruata Souza wrote:
    > > On 11/14/07, R <0xef967c36@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > OpenBSD already has filesystems in userland. Look for mount_xfs
    > > > (nothing to do with the SGI/linux thing). It is used by their afs client
    > > > implementation.
    > > >

    > >
    > > if you talking about /sbin/mount_xfs, it's just a mounter for the xfs
    > > filesystem. if you take a look at /sys/xfs you'll see what have to be
    > > done in the kernel.

    >
    > No, you're wrong !
    >
    > You can write a new filesystem as a userland daemon - and have
    > it communicate with the kernel via a /dev/xfs* device.
    > There's no need for extra code in the kernel.
    >
    > In fact, that's exactly how afsd (the Andrew Filesystem client, part
    > of the standard distribution) is working.


    You are both right. The AFS daemon runs in userspace. There has to be
    a kernel interface to get it into the systems namespace facility
    (here it is called VFS). For AFS this interface is very application specific
    (/dev/xfs) but Iru's approach would allow to write drivers in userspace and
    communicate with the kernel through an application independent interface.

    This is what 9p is all about...

    --
    You may use my gpg key for replies:
    pub 1024D/47F79788 2005/02/02 Christian Kellermann (C-Keen)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (OpenBSD)

    iD8DBQFHOuyrXYob3Uf3l4gRAtJcAJ0aVPAex2DSrEBdzj3Ci2 HyWJO5nACgoQ1y
    +wCflzz72aWv8Wlt8vTrDiQ=
    =uQWY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  11. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    On Nov 14, 2007 2:40 PM, Christian Kellermann
    wrote:
    > You are both right. The AFS daemon runs in userspace. There has to be
    > a kernel interface to get it into the systems namespace facility
    > (here it is called VFS). For AFS this interface is very application specific
    > (/dev/xfs) but Iru's approach would allow to write drivers in userspace and


    It's a generic interface, not application specific and not tied to AFS
    peculiarities.
    Think FUSE, only with using character devices instead of unix sockets
    to communicate with the userland.

    > communicate with the kernel through an application independent interface.
    >
    > This is what 9p is all about...


  12. Re: [9fans] Glendix?

    * R <0xef967c36@gmail.com> [071114 14:04]:
    > Think FUSE, only with using character devices instead of unix sockets
    > to communicate with the userland.


    indeed. My apologies.
    --
    You may use my gpg key for replies:
    pub 1024D/47F79788 2005/02/02 Christian Kellermann (C-Keen)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (OpenBSD)

    iD8DBQFHOvMxXYob3Uf3l4gRAuA6AJ0YBu3KUnwDMILtG+AsrQ yATsIufQCcDQv/
    psb2kDj9hc2/f+KfFMjLOp4=
    =bSLk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread