From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 4 2:32:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4785637B400; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 02:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8584643E09; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 02:32:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mariog@tomservo.cc) Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17Q2y0-0004WC-0D; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:32:00 +0200 Received: from apimail.dns2go.com (520095760089-0001@[80.133.139.178]) by fmrl01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17Q2xo-1kG2mOC; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:31:48 +0200 Received: from tomservo.cc (sgi.api.de [192.168.42.246]) by apimail.dns2go.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81F0339D9E; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:32:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3D2415FD.1060704@tomservo.cc> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:31:41 +0200 From: Mario Goebbels User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey Cc: Bruce Evans , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: About GEOM... References: <12909.1025704072@critter.freebsd.dk> <20020704191641.C21375-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020704092253.GW75946@wantadilla.lemis.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000308090001060506030003" X-Sender: 520095760089-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --------------000308090001060506030003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >On Thursday, 4 July 2002 at 19:20:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > >>On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> >> >>>In message <20020703233109.B17974-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >>> >>> >>>>This is mostly because resources have been diverted away from updating >>>>working code to write a second system. >>>> >>>> >>>Make that third system, the current slice/label code is our second >>>system, and I don't think the resources have been diverted as much >>>as defected. >>> >>>Either way, I know you don't want either of DEVFS or GEOM, I think >>>I know where you come from, I just happen to not agree that we >>>should stay stuck back there. >>> >>> >>I disagree that DEVFS and GEOM are forwards. >> >> > >I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I >think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs >is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more >logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain >your objections. > > DEVFS would be an improvement for me, when upgrading boxes by adding additional hardware, so I don't have to browse the dmesg, coz I will just look up /dev (since it only shows installed hardware with DEVFS). Same for GEOM, if all that will work what's described on phk's website about GEOM, then it's definitely an improvement too. I'm especially seeing forward for Copy-on-Write and encryption functionality. -mg --------------000308090001060506030003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:

On Thursday,  4 July 2002 at 19:20:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

In message <20020703233109.B17974-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:

This is mostly because resources have been diverted away from updating
working code to write a second system.

Make that third system, the current slice/label code is our second
system, and I don't think the resources have been diverted as much
as defected.

Either way, I know you don't want either of DEVFS or GEOM, I think
I know where you come from, I just happen to not agree that we
should stay stuck back there.

I disagree that DEVFS and GEOM are forwards.


I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I
think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs
is a forward.  It may need some improvement, but it's so much more
logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain
your objections.

DEVFS would be an improvement for me, when upgrading boxes by adding additional hardware, so I don't have to browse the dmesg, coz I will just look up /dev (since it only shows installed hardware with DEVFS). Same for GEOM, if all that will work what's described on phk's website about GEOM, then it's definitely an improvement too. I'm especially seeing forward for Copy-on-Write and encryption functionality.

-mg

--------------000308090001060506030003-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message