Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:34:37 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting Message-ID: <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru> References: <21342.1112914675@critter.freebsd.dk> <09c6072206df99be25e345b7e13354f5@xcllnt.net> <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> I think that having a single view is probably what's biting. If you > > Yes. But who speak about single view? If we have in-core and on-disk > partition separately, we need _two_ independent views, choosed f.e. by > some option. Your angle is slightly different from mine. We do share that the on-disk and in-core data can differ, but you seem to allow editing of the in-core data by partitioning tools, while I don't. The way I look at it is that the kernel builds the in-core data from the on-disk data when the disk is first discovered. The in-core data is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of that, but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be edited on its own. The idea here is that you remain in control while you make modifications and to allow updating the in-core data in a way that's most suitable for the sysadmin or the tool he/she is using. I think it's important to have that clear. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810>