Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:57:03 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Shawn Leas <sleas@ixion.honeywell.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Device FS? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903032342540.310-100000@s204m82.isp.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <19990304011308.A12664@ixion.honeywell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FreeBSD has had a devfs that is not genrally useful for over 2 years. The code to make it useful was removed from the tree due to various reasons that can be argued ither way. I haven't had the inspiration to re-write it as it needs to be changed to take into account some new developments in FreeBSD (e.g. CAM based SCSI) The DEVFS on FreeBSD is bot similar and different from the DEVFS im linux in htat the LINUX devfs can have devices in the DEVFS that are not physically present, in order to preserve the ownership information (It's not persistant across reboot, bot one can do a mknod, to create a device, and assign it ownerships and permissions, in th ehope that at some time on the future, a device of that name will turn up. The FreeBSD DEVFS only creates a node in /dev when the associated hardware is actually found, and hte node is not permitted to exist in any other case. Even though I wrrote DEVFS I see a severe limitiation to its usefulness due to a number of factors (including the fact that some people have hundreds of dev directories in hundreds of chroot trees). THese are surmountable, but I have a different idea I'm ruminating on that might make a DEVFS look a bit old-fashionned. On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Shawn Leas wrote: > I heard (or thought so) a long time ago that FreeBSD > had a devfs like filesystem. yes it does.. the original.. > > Now I remember, here's where I found it mentioned in > respect to FreeBeasty... > http://www.cs.uml.edu/~acahalan/linux/devfs.html > > Is this still experimental? Oh, and has anyone heard > of any LFS projects on freebsd, and/or maybe LVM? > LFS suffered a severe disilussionment problem when it was found that it didn't seem to give the promised performance. It's present;y not in the tree (only in the CVS attic) because no-one wanted to work on it any more. We have a LVM called vinum ("vinum veritas" being the latin quote) > I'm trying to think of reasons to switch over from > Linux 2.2.2-ac7-lvm0.6-devfs to -current, or maybe > stable, depending on what I feel like... if you've got a few hundred MB free, give 3.1 a try (I mean... It's free) > > -- Shawn > <=========== America Held Hostage ===========> > Day 2233 for the poor and the middle class. > Day 2252 for the rich and the dead. > 689 days remaining in the Raw Deal. > <============================================> > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9903032342540.310-100000>