From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 24 14:45: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA9937BCE5 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:45:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from semuta.feral.com (semuta [192.67.166.70]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26565; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:41:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:41:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Jack Rusher , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SANs, disks, & devfs In-Reply-To: <7888.964474163@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Well, that's why I rolled it out here - to get a taste test. I'll do a prototype- maybe in a week or so- and then announce some diffs and we'll see whether it causes a group gag reflex then. On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Matthe > w Jacob writes: > > >Again- I think that this and the full devfs is a usable methodology. I still > >would like some feedback as to whether or not linking mount (and mt, e.g.) > >with libcam so I can use device VPD info or WWNs would be just too awful for > >FreeBSD. This way it can be used now, without vinum. > > Sounds awful to me, but I guess it depends a lot on the implementation. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message