[9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem - Plan9 ; Well plan 9 is now booting under lguest, it's even faster than xen. Now I'm up to disk io, and am back at the usual '9load sets up partitions, right?' step, and have no partitions. Now, I had proposed a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

  1. [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    Well plan 9 is now booting under lguest, it's even faster than xen.

    Now I'm up to disk io, and am back at the usual '9load sets up
    partitions, right?' step, and have no partitions. Now, I had proposed
    a few years back putting that stuff into boot, but that proposal was
    seen to be bad form.

    So, question, what are you folks doing to partition disks nowadays
    when 9load has not loaded your kernel? I'm curious.

    ron

  2. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    silly ideas:

    1. couldn't you just use a kfs in a fdisk/fat partition?

    2. another approach would be to use russ' boot-to-rc script
    trick.

    3. prep the disk on a plan 9 machine.

    i was fighting a similar problem this morning. in my case
    the problem is that it is quite difficult to convince 9load
    to do any network io in addition to bootp/tftp. this makes
    finding a partition table on an aoe target somewhat difficult.

    here's my solution. in plan9.ini, add a line like

    sdf0part=9fat 0 20480/nvram 20480 20481/fossil 20481 41963521

    where this is just the output from prep -p reformatted.
    disgusting, no? and it doesn't even solve your problem, because you
    don't have established parititions.

    - erik

  3. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    hey, it wouldn't be too hard to port prep to linux, right?

    - erik

  4. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    > So, question, what are you folks doing to partition disks nowadays
    > when 9load has not loaded your kernel? I'm curious.


    You could just boot the live CDROM to install onto a physical disk
    and then boot your kernel under lguest and point it at this, rather than
    a virtual disk in a linux file. I suspose you could even use Linux dd to copy
    this disk to a linux file and then use that.

    -Steve

  5. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    On 7/17/07, Steve Simon wrote:
    > > So, question, what are you folks doing to partition disks nowadays
    > > when 9load has not loaded your kernel? I'm curious.

    >
    > You could just boot the live CDROM to install onto a physical disk
    > and then boot your kernel under lguest and point it at this, rather than
    > a virtual disk in a linux file. I suspose you could even use Linux dd to copy
    > this disk to a linux file and then use that.


    yeah but I want to do the whole thing in lguest, as a test.

    The boot cd does not help me -- cd is partitioned. I think the
    question still needs a good answer -- you have a cd and a disk image,
    you boot plan 9 without benefit of 9load, how do you get #S/sdD0/data
    set up? you need to write to ctl. What's the sensible way to do this?

    ron

  6. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    > The boot cd does not help me -- cd is partitioned. I think the
    > question still needs a good answer -- you have a cd and a disk image,
    > you boot plan 9 without benefit of 9load, how do you get #S/sdD0/data
    > set up? you need to write to ctl. What's the sensible way to do this?
    >
    > ron


    why can't you just put the (known) offsets in your plan9.ini like i am doing
    for aoe? it's distasteful, but it does get the job done.

    if you don't like that you could put fdisk and prep in your kernel
    image, write a new boot method, localpart, that partitions before
    it calls local. you could import the code for this from 9load.

    - erik


  7. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    On 7/17/07, erik quanstrom wrote:

    > why can't you just put the (known) offsets in your plan9.ini like i am doing
    > for aoe? it's distasteful, but it does get the job done.
    >


    Until the offsets change. This is intended to be used by people other than me.

    > if you don't like that you could put fdisk and prep in your kernel
    > image, write a new boot method, localpart, that partitions before
    > it calls local. you could import the code for this from 9load.


    That's what I did several years ago for the xen 2.0 port but there was
    an objection to it that I never understood. I'll go with that.

    ron

  8. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    On Tue Jul 17 13:08:26 EDT 2007, rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
    > On 7/17/07, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >
    > > why can't you just put the (known) offsets in your plan9.ini like i am doing
    > > for aoe? it's distasteful, but it does get the job done.
    > >

    >
    > Until the offsets change. This is intended to be used by people other than me.


    there always has to be a catch.... ;-)

    can you generate these offsets as part of the install?

    >
    > > if you don't like that you could put fdisk and prep in your kernel
    > > image, write a new boot method, localpart, that partitions before
    > > it calls local. you could import the code for this from 9load.

    >
    > That's what I did several years ago for the xen 2.0 port but there was
    > an objection to it that I never understood. I'll go with that.


    it seems like a good thing to keep the setup out of the kernel proper,
    but any sort of sd device that needs to use the network is going to be difficult
    with the current 9load. perhaps with a few tweaks it could be
    much easier.

    - erik

  9. Re: [9fans] the perpetual disk partition problem

    > > if you don't like that you could put fdisk and prep in your kernel
    > > image, write a new boot method, localpart, that partitions before
    > > it calls local. you could import the code for this from 9load.

    >
    > That's what I did several years ago for the xen 2.0 port but there was
    > an objection to it that I never understood. I'll go with that.


    I can't think of why this might be a bad idea, boot certainly has some
    limitations (like only allowing a small number of files), but if that
    is a problem we should remove those limitations, it seems the ideal
    place to put this kind of things.

    If we are ever going to kill 9load (and I'm still intending to
    eventually do it), putting stuff in boot seems to be the only
    reasonable option, and a rather good one I might add.

    uriel

    P.S.: As a way to bypass the current limitations one could put a paqfs
    into boot.

+ Reply to Thread