Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016)
by fulafel on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @11:56PM
(#15598699)
It's also the native host-guest file sharing protocol used by KVM: https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/9p_virtio
It works in at least Ubuntu & Fedora out of the box, and is used by the virt-manager GUI to set up shares, so not too experimental to enable by default I guess.
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016)
by voltagex_ on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @07:49PM
(#15597766)
That's been experimental for a long time - https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/9p
I guess file systems don't go into staging/?
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016)
by LukeShu on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @09:51PM
(#15598324)
On Arch Linux, it's been enabled by default for several years, and I've been using it daily for that time.
On x86_64, it's plenty stable, but I see why it's still experimental: On i686 there's a bug where files are mysteriously missing from directory listings. I tried to debug it once; it's reading them from the protocol correctly, but they're being dropped in the VFS layer, which is a bit more complicated than the network protocol.
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016)
by thisrod on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @12:57AM
(#15598873)
Maybe, once FUSE came along, 9pfuse made more sense than putting 9p in the kernel?
Re:Writing a 9P server from scratch (2016)
by exikyut on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @09:16AM
(#15600829)
I was just wondering, as I began to read the article: which would perform better - in-kernel 9P, or FUSE?
Intuitively I get the idea that FUSE is going to be the better performer overall because of lack of network overhead.
But I wonder how much worse 9P would be.
"If you say Y here, you will get experimental support for Plan 9 resource sharing via the 9P2000 protocol. See http://v9fs.sf.net for more information."