Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:47:43 +0100 (CET) From: Søren Schmidt <sos@freebsd.dk> To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How to add a new bootdevice to the new boot code ??? Message-ID: <199903172047.VAA26937@freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <19990317113918.B39105@relay.nuxi.com> from "David O'Brien" at "Mar 17, 1999 11:39:18 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems David O'Brien wrote: > > >People are asking for: > > > > > >wd0, ... > > >da0, ... > > > > > >Ie, join ad and da namespaces. > > > > If you want to join anything, go directly to "disk%d" instead. > > But that is not the "deal" that was presented to us when we had to endure > the gratuitous sd->da name change. The whole justification was a single > device name for disks (and what ever else is direct access). Yes on the SCSI busses, nothing more nothing less.... Direct Access is the SCSI term for, among others, disks... It was _mentioned_ that ATAPI devices was semilar to SCSI devices and that it _could_ be done through CAM, there was NO promise or anything back when, and there still isn't. ATA disks which this is about, is pretty far way from the CAM/SCSI world, but again a translation layer could be added inbetween. But given the situation that most ATA/ATAPI systems are used in, I belive that our user base will be more interested in max performance instead.. So the sd -> da etc namechange has nothing to do with what I'm about to do. I simply ask for the support for booting from any BDEV, and that has not been dealt with in the new boot stuff. Thats what I'm complaining about, dont tell me it wasn't done because all disk like device should be named "da", thats too naive to be belived :) -Søren 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?199903172047.VAA26937>