From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Oct 27 15:54:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15270 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:54:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sv01.cet.co.jp (sv01.cet.co.jp [210.171.56.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA15230 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:54:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by sv01.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA07005; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:52:18 GMT (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:52:18 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Terry Lambert cc: Otok Berliawan , lha@e.kth.se, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, kom-arla@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: deadfs in FreeBSD 3.0/current ? In-Reply-To: <199810272215.PAA08872@usr04.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > their pointers invalidated, and because the model insists on vnode > ownership by the system instead of by a particular file system, > even when the particular file system architecture makes that a > bad design decision. It's not that bad. I think it was made for a couple of reasons: 1) Years of working on computers where memory capacity was measured in K not MB, creates a mindset where you tend to be very focused on memory utilization. 2) Paranoia that your code will never be seen by the public because it's too much like SYSV. This was done at a time when AT&T's lawyers controlled Unix. Regards, Mike Hancock To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message