From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 12 10:32:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E859337B43F for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:32:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2CIWPnp086026; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:32:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "Kenneth D. Merry" Cc: Rasmus Skaarup , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM code ready for testing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:34:23 MST." <20020312103423.A79424@panzer.kdm.org> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:32:25 +0100 Message-ID: <86025.1015957945@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20020312103423.A79424@panzer.kdm.org>, "Kenneth D. Merry" writes: >> > >Would GEOM support accessing a device via multiple paths? (ie could we >> > >write a method that would do that?) >> > >> > Yes, that would be possible. > >FWIW, Justin and I have been thinking about (for years, actually) doing >multipath support inside CAM. You know, thinking about it, I actually think it is a stronger model to do it in GEOM, since that will be able to cover more cases than CAM will be able to. That said, since I am not on the hook to implement either so I will not impose my opinion one one way or the other :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | 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-current" in the body of the message