Re: [9fans] External HDD over USB
> 2009/2/6 erik quanstrom : > > are you running usb/disk as the host owner (eve)? > > > > oh, *eve* -- yes, I've tried as eve also, with the same > results. hostowner, after /dev/hostowner, and eve, after the kernel variable name, refer to the same thing. eve is "" until set by factotum -S (cpuserver) or factotum -u (terminal). factotum writes the hostowner to /dev/hostower and as a special case the setting process' owner is reset as well. with the default install, a cpu server's hostowner is bootes. > any debugging I ought to try? auth/debug is always a good start. no arguments, no man page. just run it. once that fails, i'd use acid(1) truss to pinpoint the system call that results in permission denied. if it is /dev/usb*, i would use scuzz(8) to double-check that it isn't a bug or misleading message in devusb. giving scuzz the "probe" command should list all the available sd devices. if it does not, then it's likely a real permissions problem. it's pretty likely that i haven't foreseen what's really going wrong on your system. so you're probablly going to need to do a bit of experimentation. good luck. - erik
Re: [9fans] FileServer grid
Sorry Uriel... I was meaning that I wouldn't be able to download it. BTW my main problem is to know if, in a grid of plan 9 fileservers, there could be any kind of replication, keeping files reachable when a node goes down. Giacomo On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Uriel wrote: > The link is *not* broken, plan9.bell-labs.com is, sadly and > unsurprisingly, broken. > > uriel > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > I'd like to move our softwares to Linux + Apache (where mounting a 9p > > fileserver would be easy), but actually it's a Windows + IIS. > > > > I would write a session state service for ASP.NET connecting it in 9p > (using > > c# and the 9pc implementation linked by > > http://9p.cat-v.org/implementations... actually the link is broken...) > > > > If the filesystem grid work as I've understood, there would be only ONE > > filesystem. > > > > So, saving session state in the grid would make it available to all web > > servers connected to the filesystem, allowing load balance and high > > availability for the web servers (when one crash, the user sessions it > was > > handling would be available to the others web server). > > > > But what if a node of the grid goes down? There would be a way to keep > files > > in it replicated in other cpu node? > > > > > > Giacomo > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 23:26 +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > >> > Hello every one... > >> > In a context of really heavy load and high availability needs, I'm > >> > evaluating plan 9 to implement a fileserver grid to be used by a web > >> > server for temporary storage (session's serializations, for example). > >> > >> What OS do you web servers run under? > >> > >> > I'd like to build a Plan 9 grid exposing a unique filesystem mounted > >> > by all the web servers. > >> > >> Are you going to talk to this filesystem using 9P or something else? > >> > >> > Each session could be accessible from any web server instantly, but > >> > what if a fileserver in the grid break? > >> > Is there a way to mantain such a session (actually the file storing > >> > the session data) available by keeping it sincronized beetween the > >> > Plan 9 fileservers? > >> > >> This is unclear. Please restate. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Roman. > >> > >> > > > > > >
Re: [9fans] FileServer grid
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > BTW my main problem is to know if, in a grid of plan 9 fileservers, there > could be any kind of replication, keeping files reachable when a node goes > down. This sort of thing was done to death IIRC in the 80s. It was dropped for a while because, at the scale of file server usage in the 90s, nfs file servers were fine. At least from what I read today, google does it now in GFS. There is an open source version of something that claims to do provide it based on Hadoop (http://hadoop.apache.org/core/) although the hadoop setups I have seen use NFS for distributing files (!). I vaguely remember gluster talking about failover and recovery (http://www.gluster.org/). Have you done a literature search? I don't get the feeling that you have. Thanks ron
Re: [9fans] /net different from sockets, but better?
Since I'm new here, hi everyone! On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Rahul Murmuria wrote: > I am planning on porting the /net concept of Plan9 to Linux. > I've been thinking about this for a few months. If you'd like help, let me know, I'd be more than happy to pitch in. > My Plan: > Use libfs[1] to write a synthetic filesystem in Linux, much like > securityfs[2], or /proc. This libfs based code will make calls to the TCP/IP > stack on the linux, and basically be an alternative to the Linux kernel > sockets. As a result I will expose networking using /net, instead of POSIX > to the applications. > > My Motivation: > Glendix[3] > > My Question: > I know that using /net instead of sockets is very different. But is it > better? Specially from the networking side of things, not from application > development point of view (which we have already established is simpler, by > example). > > [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/57369/ > [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/153366/ > [3] http://glendix.org/ and http://glendix.org/glendix_iwp9_2008.pdf > andhttp://www.osnews.com/story/20588/ > > Regards, > > -- > Rahul Murmuria > >
Re: [9fans] /net different from sockets, but better?
Hello Eric! On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > > I may have some existing code based on npfs that you can use as a > base. I asked a friend about npfs. Well, you are probably using v9fs, and you are wrapping over sockets. Not what I intend to do, but like you said, it could help. > It has the basic semantics down, but had at least one bug and > was somewhat incomplete. I'll dig around and see if I can find it - > it may be of some use as a reference, particularly for how to deal > with the clone file. Sounds great! Although I am working in kernel space, please let me know if you have something for me. > > -eric Regards, -- Rahul Murmuria
[9fans] UPAS, IMAP, and SMTP
Using upas/fs -f /imaps/imap.gmail.com I can access my GMail Inbox. The mail structure is posted in /mail/fs/mbox However, there may be local mail as well as other labels (i.e., folders) in GMail that I would want to access -- it seems that specifying a new folder at GMail, i.e., upas -f /imaps/imap.gmail.com/u...@mail.example.com/label replaces the /mail/fs/mbox structure with the mail at this new place. Is there any way to have these co-exist -- i.e., /mail/fs/mbox for the original, and /mail/fs/label for subsequent labels/folders I want to access? Next, SMTP: would someone sending mail through GMail be kind enough to show me their /mail/lib/^(rewrite qmail remotemail) please? Part of the problem I'm facing in setup is with the From: header -- in remotemail (or somewhere) I need to specify my GMail account name for smtp to use, and then I need to specify, in my mail, the address that the mail should actually go as (since I use various names and these two are different). ak
Re: [9fans] UPAS, IMAP, and SMTP
> Using upas/fs -f /imaps/imap.gmail.com I can access my GMail > Inbox. The mail structure is posted in /mail/fs/mbox > However, there may be local mail as well as other labels (i.e., folders) > in GMail that I would want to access -- it seems that specifying > a new folder at GMail, i.e., > upas -f /imaps/imap.gmail.com/u...@mail.example.com/label > replaces the /mail/fs/mbox structure with the mail at this new place. > Is there any way to have these co-exist -- i.e., /mail/fs/mbox for > the original, and /mail/fs/label for subsequent labels/folders I want > to access? yes. you can have as many mailboxes open as you wish. once upas/fs is running, you can u = u...@mail.example.com l = label echo open /imaps/imap.gmail.com/$u/$l $l>/mail/fs/ctl in fact if labels is a list you could for(i in $labels) echo open /imaps/imap.gmail.com/$u/$i $i>/mail/fs/ctl side note: upas/nedmail's rules for when to open an already open folder confused me a little bit. i changed the nupas version to prefer an already-open folder over one in /mail/box/$user to ease using a secondary imap mailbox. - erik
