From owner-cvs-all  Sat Feb 14 20:15:36 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17077
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:15:36 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17065;
          Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:15:31 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16481;
	Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:11:41 +1100
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:11:41 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199802150411.PAA16481@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, toor@dyson.iquest.net
Subject: Re: devfs persistence
Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, eivind@yes.no,
        wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>> Use mfs.
>> 
>That is a non-starter, and only adds yet another layer of complexity.  Devfs
>is a good idea for certain applications.  (Have *you* actually used MFS in
>an embedded application, with heterogeneous products, mostly (only) to support
>device nodes?, answer: it is a kludge.)

No.  When I last worked on an embedded system, a minimal mfs image (about
32K) would have been several times larger than the code :-).

What practical disadvantages does it have besides ones shared by specfs,
lack of persistence, and possibly slightly larger bloat than for devfs?

If the system is an nfs client, then you can use /dev/vn to mount ffs
images kept on the server to get persistence and avoid mfs.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message