For this we use local Infernos at machines serving resources,
using a dav server to provide the built name space to the native host systems.
Not for devices, but works for most other things.
Devices can be done by adapting their interfaces via wrapper FSs.
Ok, here's a stab at describing my
Congrats !!! Plan9 on most interesting HW ! :)
2008/11/6 ron minnich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just booted Plan 9 on a 1024+16 node BG/P this week. .
All credit to jmk, ericvh, and charles for this fantastic test run and
the existence of this new kernel.
Plan is to double it just a few times until
On 11 Nov, 15:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, i just ran some local commands from cpu server, and it is ok, i'm
gonna use the cpu servers only like a compute nodes. From cpu server i
wanted to see responses , so i did and got this:
cpus# ssh terminal name
ssh: dialing
I must have missed something. what dav server?
hiro
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Fco. J. Ballesteros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this we use local Infernos at machines serving resources,
using a dav server to provide the built name space to the native host systems.
Not for devices, but
This approach seems to be flawed on two accounts:
1. it forces the server to resolve symlinks and special
nodes, without an option for the client to do the same.
That prevents cross-tree symlinks and nodes as the
points of rendezvous *on the client*. IOW, the following
will
9grid is a distributed computing project, which features prominently
the Plan 9 from Bell Labs operating system
Armando
On 11 Nov, 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uriel) wrote:
What is a '9grid'?
uriel
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Uriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Wasn't the disaster of adding .u to p9p a clear enough indication of
how hopeless that path is?)
no. It just showed that the .u path was wrong. Adding extra ops?
Worked well for me for years, it was easy and simple.
If your
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Skip Tavakkolian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to have
separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I
suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming
your protocol operation space is large enough
the thinking
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Uriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Wasn't the disaster of adding .u to p9p a clear enough indication of
how hopeless that path is?)
Yes, .u was a disaster which is why the most
How cool! Tell me more
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
uriel
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9grid is a distributed computing project, which features prominently
the Plan 9 from Bell Labs operating system
Armando
On 11 Nov,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Uriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have
significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays.
that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal.
regardless, interpretation of the ops in a
Eric Sir,
That's what I proposed in Madrid when introducing [TR]ext. It cannot
hurt. Forward unknown transactions. The destination will Rerror on
crap - it was buggered anyway (as Roy adn HG would say)..
brucee
(back in volos, i went the wrong way and got stuck on skiathos)
On Tue, Nov 11,
I just want to have
separate protocol ops for messages versus a single extension op. I
suppose the difference is largely an implementation decision assuming
your protocol operation space is large enough
the thinking is that it's the least polluting -- in regard to 9P
messages -- while still
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:54 AM, sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we
should be using an XML based protocol extension.
Corporate acceptance was always the measure of success. it's the old
measure. And it works, unless you don't need
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:54 AM, sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolute, complete, utter disaster. Completely hopeless.
If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we
should be using an XML based protocol extension.
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Bruce Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Sir,
That's what I proposed in Madrid when introducing [TR]ext. It cannot
hurt. Forward unknown transactions. The destination will Rerror on
crap - it was buggered anyway (as Roy adn HG would say)..
Fair enough, what
It was N+1. I'm still in greece, though I spoke to tiger last night -
I played Buudy Boy with him and he said woof woof - which means come
home. I'll send you the code on my return.
The puppy has spoken (he's less patient than my sheila).
brucee
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Eric Van
Ok, i just ran some local commands from cpu server, and it is ok, i'm
gonna use the cpu servers only like a compute nodes. From cpu server i
wanted to see responses , so i did and got this:
cpus# ssh terminal name
ssh: dialing terminal name: connection refused
cpus# ssh
Ok, i just ran some local commands from cpu server, and it is ok, i'm
gonna use the cpu servers only like a compute nodes. From cpu server i
wanted to see responses , so i did and got this:
cpus# ssh terminal name
ssh: dialing terminal name: connection refused
cpus#
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Skip Tavakkolian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have
significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays.
that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal.
regardless, interpretation of the
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Skip Tavakkolian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This approach seems to be flawed on two accounts:
1. it forces the server to resolve symlinks and special
nodes, without an option for the client to do the same.
That prevents cross-tree symlinks and nodes as
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we
should be using an XML based protocol extension.
Corporate acceptance was always the measure of success. it's the old
measure. And it works, unless you
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must have missed something. what dav server?
We have one for inferno in the octopus. We presented/talked about
it in IWP9 at Volos.
--
- curiosity sKilled the cat
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks john, i would like to send simple programs (jobs) to the nodes
(diskless cpu server) of a 9grid from terminal, and get responses from
them. How can i do it?
suppose you have a list of nodes
cpu% NODES=(a b c d)
cpu% echo
What if you for whatever reason want a ps to show all the proces on
all the nodes you're running on.
for (i in $NODES) {
import -a $i .com /proc /proc
}
what's the .com for?
Your /proc is now the unified /proc of all your nodes. (I used to do
this all the time with my plan 9
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if you for whatever reason want a ps to show all the proces on
all the nodes you're running on.
for (i in $NODES) {
import -a $i .com /proc /proc
}
what's the .com for?
it's when I forgot to take part of the
Excuse my interruption, please. I probably understand less than half of
this exchange, certainly none of the in-jokes, and I know Eric Van
Hensbergen might not exactly like compliments from a lowlife but whatever:
you rock Mr. Van Hensbergen!
And some stuff for troll-clubbers to club me with:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the trivial solution on your hardware would be to partition
the pid space, wouldn't it. just have 64bit pids? let each
machine start at a 132 boundary?
Sure. But you have to change the pid type in the kernel and and
Has anyone tried injecting a Plan 9 instance into the new Amazon cloud?
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/
-Jack
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:15 -0900, Jack Johnson wrote:
Has anyone tried injecting a Plan 9 instance into the new Amazon cloud?
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/
Amazon prescreen the kernel that you can use there, but!
As was suggested by Richard Miller, if Plan9 can be
a target of kexec -- the sky
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:45 +0100, Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote:
For this we use local Infernos at machines serving resources,
using a dav server to provide the built name space to the native host systems.
Not for devices, but works for most other things.
Devices can be done by adapting their
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps me working on Plan 9 related technologies in a paid position
b) what switches people from using NFS, GPFS, or other horribly
complicated solutions to something
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM, sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps me working on Plan 9 related technologies in a paid position
b) what switches people from using
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:11 PM, sqweek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps me working on Plan 9 related technologies in a paid
position
b) what switches people from using NFS, GPFS, or other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:40 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
does anyone remember why !, | and || echo follow their
output with a !\n? would anyone miss this behavior?
- erik
Could you give an example?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:27 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
At least in case of cpu(1) the magic is a bit perverse and quite
unlike the rest of the system. The way notes are managed make
a local end of a cpu(1) jump through considerable hoops in order
for the notes to be properly delivered. That was a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Eris Discordia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And some stuff for troll-clubbers to club me with:
1. What is 9P's edge over text-based protocol X?
It has a simple mapping to basic file operations, which makes it easy
to transparently use on the client side. Aside
protocol itself. The problem is it forces the server and client to
synchronise on every read/write syscall, which results in terrible
bandwidth utilisation. Unless we see some remarkable improvements in
[...]
I'm sure I've missed something, but readahead is safe for all these
constructs
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
protocol itself. The problem is it forces the server and client to
synchronise on every read/write syscall, which results in terrible
bandwidth utilisation. Unless we see some remarkable improvements in
[...]
I'm sure
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:11 PM, sqweek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps me working on Plan 9 related technologies in a paid
0: the client calls pread()
0: devmnt sends a Tread to the server
1: server recieves Tread
1: server sends Rread
2: client recieves Rread
2: pread() returns
You can't do any better than this if the server is involved, so what
who says a remote server is involed? perhaps the remote
I've been wondering about the minimal h/w you'd need for a cpu server
and whether it exists in a compact blade-like form. Conceivably all a
plan 9 cpu server needs is cpu, ram, pxe ethernet and all the gunk
necessary to get it to boot, i.e., no video, no i/o ports, no disk
controllers etc. that
42 matches
Mail list logo
