Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:41:06 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mdioctl.h src/sys/dev/md md.c src/sbin/mdconfig mdconfig.8 mdconfig.c Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040311063721.03e220b8@imap.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <48348.1078986950@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <Your message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:30:28 GMT." <6.0.1.1.1.20040311062306.03f9ade0@imap.sfu.ca> <48348.1078986950@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:35 11/03/2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <6.0.1.1.1.20040311062306.03f9ade0@imap.sfu.ca>, Colin Percival >writ >es: > ><kernelnewbie> > > Is it really necessary for vnode-backed memory disks to be > >accessed through the filesystem? Why can't md(4) hijack the > >disk blocks which constitute the file (telling the filesystem > >not to touch them, of course) and translate I/O operations > >directly into I/O on the underlying device? > ></kernelnewbie> > >That would be a really complex solution to a problem which should not >exist in the first place :-) Well... yes, but it *would* make sure that data didn't get passed back up to the filesystem layer. And it would probably be faster, which is why I thought of it. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040311063721.03e220b8>