From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan 19 00:14:33 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C4916A41F
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:33 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dworkin@village.org)
Received: from green-dome.village.org (green-dome.village.org [168.103.84.186])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C10B43D49
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:32 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dworkin@village.org)
Received: from green-dome.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1])
	by green-dome.village.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id k0J0EUB27323
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:14:30 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200601190014.k0J0EUB27323@green-dome.village.org>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
From: dlm-fb@weaselfish.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:28:04 GMT
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:14:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for large number of md(4) disks 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:33 -0000


"Wojciech A. Koszek" <dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl> wrote:
:  [1] cases in which total device number will change are as probable as
:  using more than 100 md(4) disks ;-) This is why I decided to use simple
:  request for a size and to do a request for md(4) list.

FWIW, to address the implicit ``no one would ever ....''  My employer
is currently planning on using several hundred (or more) md disks at a
time in an upcoming project.  We don't need to have all of the md
devices immediately available at boot, so fsck'ing the
relatively-small filesystems on them on demand would be much more
attractive than doing a single multi-terabyte check up front would be.
For various reasons, soft updates aren't a viable option for us right
now, so background fsck doesn't help.

	Dworkin