From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 12 14:58:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D1C151D5; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18360; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:57:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:57:49 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Kirk McKusick Cc: Julian Elischer , Bruce Evans , Matthew Dillon , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The eventual fate of BLOCK devices. In-Reply-To: <199910122014.NAA15822@flamingo.McKusick.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Kirk McKusick wrote: > I would like to take a step back from the debate for a moment and > ask the bigger question: How many real-world applications actually > use the block device interface? I know of none whatsoever. All the > filesystem utilities go out of their way to avoid the block device > and use the raw interface. Does anyone on this list know of any > programs that need/want the block interface? If there are none, or It doesn't run on FreeBSD, but Sybase uses block devices for its dedicated disk devices. There may be other RDBMSes that do this. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message