Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:31:41 +0200 From: Mario Goebbels <mariog@tomservo.cc> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: About GEOM... Message-ID: <3D2415FD.1060704@tomservo.cc> References: <12909.1025704072@critter.freebsd.dk> <20020704191641.C21375-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020704092253.GW75946@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--------------000308090001060506030003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>On Thursday, 4 July 2002 at 19:20:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In message <20020703233109.B17974-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is mostly because resources have been diverted away from updating
>>>>working code to write a second system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Make that third system, the current slice/label code is our second
>>>system, and I don't think the resources have been diverted as much
>>>as defected.
>>>
>>>Either way, I know you don't want either of DEVFS or GEOM, I think
>>>I know where you come from, I just happen to not agree that we
>>>should stay stuck back there.
>>>
>>>
>>I disagree that DEVFS and GEOM are forwards.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I
>think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs
>is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more
>logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain
>your objections.
>
>
DEVFS would be an improvement for me, when upgrading boxes by adding
additional hardware, so I don't have to browse the dmesg, coz I will
just look up /dev (since it only shows installed hardware with DEVFS).
Same for GEOM, if all that will work what's described on phk's website
about GEOM, then it's definitely an improvement too. I'm especially
seeing forward for Copy-on-Write and encryption functionality.
-mg
--------------000308090001060506030003
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20020704092253.GW75946@wantadilla.lemis.com">
<pre wrap="">On Thursday, 4 July 2002 at 19:20:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:20020703233109.B17974-100000@gamplex.bde.org"><20020703233109.B17974-100000@gamplex.bde.org></a>, Bruce Evans writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is mostly because resources have been diverted away from updating
working code to write a second system.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Make that third system, the current slice/label code is our second
system, and I don't think the resources have been diverted as much
as defected.
Either way, I know you don't want either of DEVFS or GEOM, I think
I know where you come from, I just happen to not agree that we
should stay stuck back there.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I disagree that DEVFS and GEOM are forwards.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I
think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs
is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more
logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain
your objections.
</pre>
</blockquote>
DEVFS would be an improvement for me, when upgrading boxes by adding additional
hardware, so I don't have to browse the dmesg, coz I will just look up /dev
(since it only shows installed hardware with DEVFS). Same for GEOM, if all
that will work what's described on phk's website about GEOM, then it's definitely
an improvement too. I'm especially seeing forward for Copy-on-Write and encryption
functionality.<br>
<br>
-mg<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000308090001060506030003--
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?3D2415FD.1060704>