Hi Jeff, thanks:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Sickel <j...@corpus-callosum.com> wrote: > Rubén, > > For better, or worse, nothing really serves HFS+ these days. Apple's > transitioning from AFP to SMB2 when sharing files. I can't say I'm > disappointed that AFP is finally going away. > > Until someone writes an HFSX fs device support you won't be able to mount > a drive formatted under OSX. You could mount a FAT device, within reason. > > I've had trouble getting Plan 9's NFS server to serve up bits that OSX > client can actually use. Someone else's milage may vary. Same goes for > CIFS. > > Now if you're trying to exportfs to a Mac there are several levels of pain > you can go through: > > 1) mac9p -- ask fsb for more details (or google mac9p and find his hg repo > or the github fork) > Hmmm... The use at your own risk doesn't sound really encouraging... I'm wary of kexts, even installing fuse from brew was a little over the edge. If it wasn't because I have used sshfs in the past and found it almost indispensable in most cases, I would have skipped it. > 2) cifs -- read the aquarela man page > Did yesterday, wasn't convinced and thought nfs would be better... > 3) 9pfuse -- I've not tested this with recent fuse versions > The pipe essentially breaks after ~30 seconds with the latest version of osxfuse, unknown reason (no matter how many d's I add to 9import). I can read the remote drive during this time, access and create files. But when it dies, it dies "hard" so I need to remove the tmp/ns.file in Mac OS, eject the fuse volume, etc. Painful, and anyway, not that useful. > 4) nfs -- this shouldn't be painful, but it is > That's the impression I got from the man pages :( > > But I usually find that connecting to my Plan 9 cpu servers through > drawterm or Inferno tends to be the best bridge|least pain (though mac9p > tends to be a really good option). > Drawterm works like a charm (some day I will compile and try the iOS version...), and I can use it with cp without any problems, everything works as expected. But I wanted a solution that was relatively straightforward so that we (me and my SO) could access the drive without needing (relatively) complicated steps. I don't know what I'll do from this point on, since this was a good "reasoned" way to justify an always on device with Plan9... Now I think it will be a device with Raspbian or Plan9 depending on what I want to do... And it will probably mean Raspbian more often than not (so I can use APL.) Ruben > > -jas > > On Mar 9, 2014, at 3:39 AM, Rubén Berenguel <ru...@mostlymaths.net> wrote: > > Thanks Steve. In any case, I can't serve HFS+ serving files because P9 > can't access them. But I could serve a FAT device. > > I finally managed to exportfs the drive, I'm not sure if due to a > combination of things in /lib/namespace or the -t flag in listen1 did the > trick, or the combination of the two. I was happy for around 30 seconds, > which is the time 9pfuse (9import) took to issue a "broken pipe" on my > terminal, killing the connection to my remote disk. Pretty fed up of > setting up a remote drive by now. > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Steve Simon <st...@quintile.net> wrote: > >> > I want my >> > Plan9 host to serve a HFS+ drive. >> >> If you want to serve files (rather than a block device) from plan9 to >> a mac then plan9 has an nfs server and, two cifs servers available. >> >> -Steve >> >> > >
