From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 9 03:43:15 2005 Return-Path: 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 C49E016A4CE for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:43:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765EC43D4C for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:43:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j393hCFq053908; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 07:43:13 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j393hBfW053907; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 07:43:11 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 07:43:10 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20050409034310.GA52995@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Marcel Moolenaar , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20050408055144.GA6147@nagual.pp.ru> <20050408063138.GA6884@nagual.pp.ru> <4fc54539e2b80a0718c8d21be862c379@xcllnt.net> <20050408071439.GA7431@nagual.pp.ru> <20050408191045.GA10743@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20050408210453.GA32421@nagual.pp.ru> <20050408223335.GA11503@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20050408234927.GD37182@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter (version: 1.1.0-3; AVE: 6.30.0.7; VDF: 6.30.0.77; host: nagual.pp.ru) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (nagual.pp.ru [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 09 Apr 2005 07:43:13 +0400 (MSD) cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 03:43:15 -0000 On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:23:12PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > 1. > If it's a swap *file*, it must live in a file system and thus in a > partition. You cannot, by your own argument, create an in-core partition > that overlaps the partition that holds the file system in which the swap > file lives. If it's a swap partition, you can just use it. I don't mean overlapping. I can shrink whole foreign (inactive) filesystem to the swap file size, then expand it back after use, both operations are in-core and no overlapping created. > 2. > If FreeBSD can mount the file system, you don't need any partition > tricks > to create more storage. Use md(4). I know. Let's assume, FreeBSD can't. To be more precise, just one example: formally FreeBSD can mount NTFS, but in reality NTFS support is so badly written so can damage things. F.e. I remember one restriction: NTFS partition must be small, otherwise there overflow happens somewhere inside ntfs code with lots of kernel printfs and lots of files are not visible. > 3. > If FreeBSD can't mount the file system, then there's a provider without > consumers in the GEOM world. A yet to be written GEOM class can be used > for > ad-hoc, volatile slicing of a provider. Writing such a GEOM class is > much > more useful, because it's generic and better fits the design of GEOM. If there will be GEOM class especially for such type of things, there is no difference, because it is equivalent to in-core editing. But I don't have much expectation of further GEOM development, looking at nowdays phk's reaction. > Point 3 > above is an indication that there is use for soft-slicing. Soft-slicing > has > nothing to do with disk partitions. To emphase: soft-slicing of foreign filesystem. It depends on implementation. It can be related or not. If the same functionality provided with the same complexity level by another way, there is no difference from usage point of view. -- http://ache.pp.ru/