[9fans] 2 things - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] 2 things - Plan9 ; http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page -- probably worth reading. and this one is kind of weird but widely used it seems http://ccache.samba.org/ "Our software is so big it takes forever to build! what to do? " "add more software of course" ron...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: [9fans] 2 things

  1. [9fans] 2 things

    http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page -- probably worth reading.

    and

    this one is kind of weird but widely used it seems
    http://ccache.samba.org/

    "Our software is so big it takes forever to build! what to do? "
    "add more software of course"

    ron

  2. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    I also used samba's distcc too, much more often than ccache.

    2007/10/4, ron minnich :
    > http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page -- probably worth reading.
    >
    > and
    >
    > this one is kind of weird but widely used it seems
    > http://ccache.samba.org/
    >
    > "Our software is so big it takes forever to build! what to do? "
    > "add more software of course"
    >
    > ron
    >


  3. Re: [9fans] 2 things


    I'll bite. What do 9fans want to know about SRB?

    -GBA


    > http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page -- probably worth reading.
    >
    > and
    >
    > this one is kind of weird but widely used it seems
    > http://ccache.samba.org/
    >
    > "Our software is so big it takes forever to build! what to do? "
    > "add more software of course"
    >
    > ron
    >



  4. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    Geoffrey Avila wrote:
    > I'll bite. What do 9fans want to know about SRB?


    Solid Rocket Boosters, for when you want your files delivered *NOW*

    > -GBA
    >
    >
    >> http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page -- probably worth reading.
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> this one is kind of weird but widely used it seems
    >> http://ccache.samba.org/
    >>
    >> "Our software is so big it takes forever to build! what to do? "
    >> "add more software of course"
    >>
    >> ron

    Adrain



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFHBYhhIRiOsXzK05QRAnN4AKCQDJwozd3tkBjBYTa4qq iR9Kz30ACfVqhU
    5RgTIUTJA1ZmNpuYhfBF+S8=
    =QKBt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    On 10/4/07, Geoffrey Avila wrote:
    >
    > I'll bite. What do 9fans want to know about SRB?


    It's an fyi thing. It's another thing plan 9 could do better, that's all.
    ron

  6. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, ron minnich wrote:

    > On 10/4/07, Geoffrey Avila wrote:
    > >
    > > I'll bite. What do 9fans want to know about SRB?

    >
    > It's an fyi thing. It's another thing plan 9 could do better, that's all.


    Hmmm. 'Round about these parts, them's fightin' words....

    One of the many things that SRB (and iRODS) address is metadata
    management above the layer of the disk filesystem. It's not like we use
    it like AFS/NFS, even though that's possible. Lots of people seem to like
    getting at their data via an API more rich than what can be reasonably
    offered as a seekable bytestream.

    Isn't that a very explicitly un-plan9-like thing to want?

    I mean, the people who write SRB sorta take it for granted that all of
    their users will be running different & incompatible lunix variants and
    will want to plug into SRB through their custom HPC app which is probably
    written in C++ or Java, if not Python. People are used to a big heavy
    library/class thing to call on to do something.

    I guess I have a burning desire to know explicitly how & how much better
    plan 9 could do this, please don't leave me hanging...

    -GBA



  7. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    On 10/4/07, Geoffrey Avila wrote:
    >Lots of people seem to like
    > getting at their data via an API more rich than what can be reasonably
    > offered as a seekable bytestream.
    >
    > Isn't that a very explicitly un-plan9-like thing to want?


    that's not un-plan9-like at all.

    > People are used to a big heavy
    > library/class thing to call on to do something.
    >


    is this a good thing or just something we live with?

    ron

  8. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    > >
    > > Isn't that a very explicitly un-plan9-like thing to want?

    >
    > that's not un-plan9-like at all.


    Ok, I guess I just can't see it; While it may be possible (and good!) to
    let your plan 9 fileserver be a data repository, I'd think that good
    middleware needs to be OS-agnostic, so as to be isolated from the details
    of things like filesystem implementation.

    >
    > > People are used to a big heavy
    > > library/class thing to call on to do something.
    > >

    > is this a good thing or just something we live with?
    >
    > ron
    >

    I'm not sure if it's good or bad. It seems to be the way modern
    environments expect you to write programs that talk to each other.

    I'll plead the fifth. My lack of a CS degree absolves me from having an
    official opinion!

    Why coulden't the sort of Grid Middleware (acck! thppt! sorry...) facility
    that the irods people want to make be an integral part of the OS;
    something that could be manipulated via mount & cat & echo &c.?

    My guess is that it is asking a lot of Unix to try and make it work that
    way, in a manner that is reliable and dependable and cross-platform enough
    to be useful. What the hell else do we use? Windows? It has the virtue at
    least, of ubiquity...


  9. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    > Ok, I guess I just can't see it; While it may be possible (and good!) to
    > let your plan 9 fileserver be a data repository, I'd think that good
    > middleware needs to be OS-agnostic, so as to be isolated from the details
    > of things like filesystem implementation.


    good middleware. i'd never thought of combining that adjective with that
    noun. (or is middleware officially a pronoun?)

    what's the limit to this sort of indirection? does someone decide that some
    middleware agnostic layer needs to be built, so developers don't have to
    bother with the little details of their middleware?

    - erik


  10. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    if you need "middleware" you can use inferno as such. snd your apps will
    be really portable. give it a try if you didn´t

    > > Ok, I guess I just can't see it; While it may be possible (and good!) to
    > > let your plan 9 fileserver be a data repository, I'd think that good
    > > middleware needs to be OS-agnostic, so as to be isolated from the details
    > > of things like filesystem implementation.

    >


    >
    >


  11. Re: [9fans] 2 things

    > if you need "middleware" you can use inferno as such. snd your apps will
    > be really portable. give it a try if you didn´t


    although that's similar to what i do myself, more practically, the plan 9 ports environment shows
    that it's reasonably possible to provide a C programming environment with
    the small set of Plan 9 primitives on a range of decidedly heterogeneous systems.

    this still doesn't quite address the question of how the extended functionality
    attributed to SRB might be provided in the Plan 9 environment.
    a general answer would be `the design of name spaces to represent those services',
    but it would probably be interesting to look in detail at a few examples at least,
    to help make the discussion more concrete. (it needs to be approached from
    the application's point of view, in what it's intended to achieve,
    not `how would you do SRB's XYZ operation'.)


+ Reply to Thread