Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:55:49 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@freebsd.org> To: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: geom_fox vs gmultipath Message-ID: <469373C5.6070306@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200707092201.32209.lists@jnielsen.net> References: <200707092201.32209.lists@jnielsen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Nielsen wrote: > I was just reading the (pre-) release notes for 7.0 at > http://people.freebsd.org/~bmah/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes.html and learned > about mjacob's gmultipath(8) implementation, which seems very similar to > phk's older geom_fox(4) but perhaps a bit more polished. > > First off, is that a correct assessment? I haven't used either, but > externally gmultipath is distinguished by having its own control utility > (rather than relying on geom(8)), a manpage (and perhaps other features) > more consistent with other geom utilities, and support for predictable > volume names under /dev/multipath/. > > Assuming I'm basically on target so far, does geom_fox have any features > that are not in gmultipath? If not, should it be considered deprecated? (or > should gmultipath be considered experimental since it's newer?) > > I'm just curious, esp. since I may have a need for one of the two in the > near future. Your assessments are pretty dead on. geom_fox from what I understood was more of a proof of concept, and geom_multipath is the 'real deal'. I played with both, and geom_multipath does well, whereas geom_fox did have some shortcomings. From my (maybe limited) experience, you should be able to use geom_multipath without much issue. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?469373C5.6070306>