Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 07:44:56 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Vallo Kallaste <kalts@estpak.ee> Cc: Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, n0go013 <ttz@blahdeblah.demon.co.uk>, current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [ GEOM tests ] vinum drives lost Message-ID: <20021005221456.GR83766@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20021005125505.GA1248@tiiu.internal> References: <62515.1033758160@critter.freebsd.dk> <3D9DEFF7.7050508@isi.edu> <20021005125505.GA1248@tiiu.internal>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 5 October 2002 at 15:55:05 +0300, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:45:59PM -0700, Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU> wrote: > >>> Well, the showstopper is in vinum. The fact that ccd(4) works >>> seamlessly with GEOM is testament to this. >> >> For some reason I was under the (mis?)impression that ccd was no longer >> being maintained... If it works with geom, we can probably move our >> machines over to ccd. They're all no-frills stripes, so ccd >> functionality is good enough. > > Some time ago Scott Long pointed out to me that ccd has less > overhead than vinum It does? > and is better suited for bare striping. It is? I'd be interested in details. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20021005221456.GR83766>