From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Jan 22 11:29:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from aplcenMP.apl.jhu.edu (apl.jhu.edu [128.220.101.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E04214C2D for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:29:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mccrobi@aplcenMP.apl.jhu.edu) Received: from apl.jhu.edu (kslip13.apl.jhu.edu [128.220.108.23]) by aplcenMP.apl.jhu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA14733 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <388A05EA.E8CE2EBA@apl.jhu.edu> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:32:58 -0500 From: Chuck McCrobie X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Userfs Daemon Dies, What Happens? & Caching Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've been following the discussion about the userfs. I'm wondering what happens if, while the pseudo-device is mounted, the daemon dies. Doesn't that tend to "fudge" up the pseudo-device? I've only just started into file system implementations for FreeBSD, so sorry if the answer is obvious... It would seem that some type of recovery would be necessary for the new daemon when its started. Does the userfs handle caching of disk blocks? Does it handle caching of inodes? Does it handle caching of directory data? If so, the userfs would then not benefit from the caching algorithms in the kernel? Chuck McCrobie (** MAD VAX **) mccrobi@apl.jhu.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message