On Saturday 25 July 2009 18:46:27 erik quanstrom wrote: <snip> > auth/keyfs provides the authentication database. > this is run on the auth server. > > awuth/wrkey writes the host keys into nvram. this needs > to happen on every cpu server encluding the auth server. this > enables the hostowner to boot unattended. otherwise > someone would need to be at the console to type in > the authdomain, hostowner, and password. >
Perfect, thanks. > on a pc nvram is typically not usuable, so a 512-file > plan9.nvr in 9fat or a 512-byte prep partition named > nvram serves this purpose. > > > Why is sysname= not documented in plan9.ini(8)? Just an oversight? > > because it's not set there. ndb/cs sets sysname. > see comments in /rc/bin/cpurc. > I got the notion that you can set sysname via plan9.ini from this doc: http://www.9grid.fr/wiki/plan9/Configuring_a_Standalone_CPU_Server/ About half way down the page, under the 'NETWORK DATABASE' section: " If you're not setting up a whole network and just want drawterm access to the combined cpu and auth server you're configuring, adding the single line: authdom=some.domain auth=cycles ...to /lib/ndb/local will suffice, if you also add the line: sysname=cycles ...to plan9.ini. " This appears to work. For example, I put: sysname=howl in my terminal's plan9.ini, and after I reboot, /dev/sysname and $sysname end up being set accordingly... I guess because anything put into plan9.ini ends up as an env variable? > > There seems to be somewhat of an ambiguity regarding "workstation-class" > > terminals, vs. the "dumb" terminals - it seems not totally unreasonable > > for someone to have their "personal workstation" setup as a cpu/auth > > terminal. > > i think you may be missing the distinction. a terminal > in plan 9 is simply a personal machine. computing power > or hardware capabilities have nothing to do with it. > a cpu server is a shared resource. there's also often > an assumption that cpu servers that provide services > like authentication are always available. > I understand that, but I didn't pose my question correctly. The gist behind the question might have made more sense if I had phrased it differently: Given the following ridiculously contrived hypothetical situation: You only had a single computer in your house, and you could only run Plan 9 on it... Would you opt to install and configure it with a terminal kernel, or would you decide to use a cpu kernel, with auth and fs services enabled? Or is there simply no reason to prefer one over the other given such constrained circumstances? I realize it's totally "against the point" to have a _single_ plan 9 box; but I doubt it's all that rare when you step outside the lab or the corporate environment and peer into the domiciles of everyday people using plan 9 at home for personal experimentation and educational purposes.
