Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:16:12 -0400 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: terry@lambert.org Cc: terry@lambert.org, jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, tom@sdf.com, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, root@friday.keanesea.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: What is the best way to setup a drive Message-ID: <199607040616.CAA14851@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199607040401.VAA12261@phaeton.artisoft.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:01:44 -0700 (MST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I cringe at the though of another branch of this thread, but here goes... > All file systems will have mount point vnode assignments as a result > of a callback as a result of device probe. What about conflicting mount points? Or suppose I'm diagnosing a dead /usr disk from another computer... will I have to worry about my working /usr being overwritten, or will there be some sort of identification, say, a timestamp written to all disks late during bootup (after probe and hierarchy fill), to ensure that they're on the same computer? And if so, how do we handle the whole point of sharing these? Semaphores, first one to mount stamps? Danger: hair ahead. Actually, I don't quite recall the point of your augmented superblocks to begin with. > It is unacceptable for the idea of sharing a read-only > root among multiple clients, and must be discarded as historical > cruft, which we may ignore at our leisure. Just so long as we don't break any code which depends on said historical cruft, I'm all for it. -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Fourth law of computing: Anything that can go wro .signature: segmentation violation -- core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607040616.CAA14851>