From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Jan 31 12:16:52 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9924837B407; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mcomail02.maxtor.com (mcomail02.maxtor.com [134.6.76.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06A743F85; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:16:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stephen_byan@maxtor.com) Received: from mcoexc03.mlm.maxtor.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mcomail02.maxtor.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VKAR817917; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:10:27 -0700 Received: from mmans02.mma.maxtor.com ([134.6.232.101]) by mcoexc03.mlm.maxtor.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id D4XRK62D; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:16:52 -0700 Received: from maxtor.com by mmans02.mma.maxtor.com (8.8.8/1.1.22.3/08May01-0432PM) id PAA0000002380; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:16:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:16:37 -0500 Subject: Re: DEV_B_SIZE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org To: phk@freebsd.org From: Steve Byan In-Reply-To: <22438.1044040127@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 02:08 PM, phk@freebsd.org wrote: > I get the sense that you want us to say "NOOOO this is HORRIBLE!!!" > and you won't stop asking until we do ? > > You won't have that from this bloke at least. > > I don't know what the agenda you push are, but I'm not pushing it > for you... I keep getting a response that reads like "we'll detect the larger block size and run with it". I'm concerned that I'm not being clear that IDEMA is thinking of proposing a backward-compatibility mode with the presumption that it will work fine (albeit slowly) with existing binaries, i.e. code that hasn't been modified to be aware of the larger block size. If you think there are no functional problems with this backwards-compatibility scenario, including during recovery (fsck or journal roll-forward), I'd be happy to hear a clear "no problem". Regards, -Steve -------- Steve Byan Design Engineer Maxtor Corp. MS 1-3/E23 333 South Street Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (508) 770-3414 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message