From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 11 22:26:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E64237B718 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:26:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2C6QBM28491; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:26:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:26:11 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Greg Lehey Cc: "Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen" , current@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: how's vinum these days with DEVFS? Message-ID: <20010311222611.S18351@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010311115147.L57126@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010311112923.A41738@bank-pedersen.dk> <20010311032701.G18351@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010312091758.R57126@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010311203903.M18351@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010312155017.R11986@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010312155017.R11986@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 03:50:17PM +1030 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Greg Lehey [010311 21:20] wrote: > On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 20:39:03 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Greg Lehey [010311 15:21] wrote: > >> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >>> > >>> Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the million symlinks that non-devfs > >>> vinum does. > >> > >> The only symlinks that the non-devfs version makes are to the drives. > >> Everything else is device nodes. But yes, it doesn't make as many > >> device nodes, and that is a Good Thing. > >> > >>> Try using /dev/vinum/vol/raid01 instead of /dev/vinum/raid01 > >>> > >>> (notice you need the '/vol/' path component) > >> > >> I missed that. This is not correct. The directory /dev/vinum/vol > >> should go away. > > > > Er, too late. :) > > > > On a devfs system here's what you'll see: > > > >>> ls -lR /dev/vinum/ > > total 0 > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 0x40000001 Feb 22 21:26 Control > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 0x40000002 Feb 22 21:26 control > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 0x40000000 Feb 22 21:26 controld > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 0 Mar 11 03:24 plex > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 0 Mar 11 03:24 sd > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 0 Mar 11 03:24 vol > > > > /dev/vinum/plex: > > total 0 > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 1 Feb 22 21:26 vinum0.p0 > > > > /dev/vinum/sd: > > total 0 > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 2 Feb 22 21:26 vinum0.p0.s0 > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 0x10000002 Feb 22 21:26 vinum0.p0.s1 > > > > /dev/vinum/vol: > > total 0 > > crw------- 1 root wheel 91, 0 Feb 22 21:26 vinum0 > > > > > > I'd like to keep it this way, it just makes sense. > > No, that's a gratuitous change. All the docco talks about keeping the > volumes in the main directory. That's why people are having trouble. > Yes, it looks more uniform, but the objects aren't uniform. Since both you and Poul refused to fix the code I choose how I thought it should be. Can you explain why: > Yes, it looks more uniform, but the objects aren't uniform. It just doesn't make sense to me to mix these device nodes in with the control/Control/controld nodes. Also, why not have a /dev/vinum/ctl/ directory for those nodes? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message