From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Jun 10 17:25:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA28471 for fs-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28432 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-1) with ESMTP id BAA23823 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:24:57 +0100 (BST) Prev-Resent: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:24:56 +0100 Prev-Resent: "fs@freebsd.org " To: "Hr.Ladavac" cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG, james@jraynard.demon.co.uk From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: Breaking ffs - speed enhancement? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:12:07 +0200." <199606101412.AA062675927@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:38:06 +0100 Message-ID: <22695.834431886@palmer.demon.co.uk> Resent-To: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:24:57 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <23821.834452697@palmer.demon.co.uk> Resent-From: Gary Palmer Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk "Hr.Ladavac" wrote in message ID <199606101412.AA062675927@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at>: > Well, all I've seen is what I've seen in the manpage and sources. I did > not actually test it, but I think one needs the ability to add more than > /p/ip and /p/unix (whatever they are named.) I'd like to use it as a > clone of Atria MVFS and ClearAudit. Naturally, my portal daemon will have > to do that, somehow. MVFS? Sorry, not familiar with that. My /etc/portal.conf has: tcplisten/ tcplisten tcplisten/ tcp/ tcp tcp/ fs/ file fs/ pipe/ pipe foo/ exec ./bar bar baz the first 3 are known to work (at least, they USED to when I was testing/developing portals), the last 2 don't. (or at least the pipes doesn't work, haven't been able to contrive a test for the exec case). I'm not even 100% sure what the author was trying to do with the ``pipe'' implimentation. The IDEAL case would allow you to plug in your own modules to extend the filesystem, but to do that without opening up MASSIVE security holes would be ``interesting'' to say the least. As it is the ``exec'' case may be left unimplimented (if it isn't already) for that very reason. > Since I did not test it, do the portals work, and from which OS version > onwards? Portals have worked to a greater or lesser extent since (at least) 2.0.5-RELEASE, probably also (to a lesser extent) in 2.0-RELEASE. Nothing has changed in the portals system for a while now as I haven't had the time of late (although I should try to get back to it sometime, or help someone else who has the time) > Shall we move there, then? Done Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info