Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:51:45 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting Message-ID: <20050408055144.GA6147@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@xcllnt.net> References: <21342.1112914675@critter.freebsd.dk> <09c6072206df99be25e345b7e13354f5@xcllnt.net> <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru> <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:34:37PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Your angle is slightly different from mine. We do share that the on-disk > and in-core data can differ, but you seem to allow editing of the > in-core Yes I want to allow editing of both, for more flexibility and safety. See below. > data by partitioning tools, while I don't. > > is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified > by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of that, > but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by > some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be > edited > on its own. It bring some problems like illegal on-disk modification synced to in-core. Since on-disk editing is not controlled (and should not be), it may overlap or be incorrect in some other way. But, if you edit in-core partition instead, as I suggest, you can do all sorts of checking and safety, easily excluding overlaps, etc. I.e. I suggest in-core->on-disk sync (which always write checked result) instead of can't be checked on-disk->in-core sync. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050408055144.GA6147>