From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 13 16:45:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659FF37B401 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:45:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (InterJet.elischer.org [192.168.1.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA71366; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:33:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Nitin Nahata Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Block Device I/O In-Reply-To: <20010713210250.29991.qmail@nwcst288.netaddress.usa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG we couldn't find any reason th have block devices except in teh case for exporting the nodes via NFS. The buffer caching is done at teh filesystem level, and raw-io is faster with the raw device, so it was complicating the code without giving us any real advantage.. If you need a cached device then you can achieve that in other ways. your comments are appreciated.. On 13 Jul 2001, Nitin Nahata wrote: > I saw an old message in 1999 freebsd-hackers archive that said that block > devices were being replaced from freebsd. I tried to follow the trail of > the message but could not find anything more.......Also I could not find > any bdevsw[] in the code. I shall be thankful if anyone could give any > further references about how Block I/O is being implemented now... > > Thanks > > Nitin > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message