From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 12 20:57:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26857 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:57:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (ppp1-174.presc.dialup.futureone.com [209.250.11.174]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26852 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:57:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by psf.Pinyon.ORG (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA09966 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:53:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Message-Id: <199902130453.VAA09966@psf.Pinyon.ORG> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:21:23 PST." <199902121921.LAA06904@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:53:38 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG %:> What were the requirements for NASA/Ames? %:> %:> %: %:Replacement for the Convex (chuck && scott) machines, i.e., > 900GB %:reliable standard filesystem that you could then put RASH hooks into %:later. Whether these would be via locally attached disk or via a HIPPI %:network block device ('raw frame' driver) was/in indeterminate. %: %:It's not clear whether anything but NetBSD will be used for these %:machines, but there had been so many hardware related and also possible %:FFS related problems with the MSS3 project that I was allowed to go off %:and search for possible alternatives. Digital Unix/ADVFS as is Solaris/UFS %:and Solaris/SAMFS (LSC's produce) are also candidates, but those are less %:attractive because they're not open source solutions. At any rate, at the %:time I was doing this, I could not demonstrate FreeBSD/FFS to be a %:superior combo than NetBSD/FFS, hence the term 'loss'. %: %:-matt % % If you need absolute reliability, I would seriously consider a NetApp. % I'd choose that over everything - solaris, irix, *bsd, linux, NT. You % name it. % If the solution were bought off the shelf, there would be no need for NASA Ames. Therefore... Actually, what they want is something that can be claimed to evolve apace with their spreadsheeted extrapolations of user needs for the next 5 and 10 years. These extrapolations more or less follow Moore's law applied to things like current storage requirements, so it's always an interesting process keeping ahead, given NASA's acquisition process. Russell % -Matt % Matthew Dillon % % % %To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org %with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message % To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message