Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The eventual fate of BLOCK devices. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910121530190.15048-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991012165540.65198B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(this should be on 'freebsd-arch' only...) I BELIEVE sybase uses raw devices, right? On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, David Scheidt wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Kirk McKusick wrote: > > > I would like to take a step back from the debate for a moment and > > ask the bigger question: How many real-world applications actually > > use the block device interface? I know of none whatsoever. All the > > filesystem utilities go out of their way to avoid the block device > > and use the raw interface. Does anyone on this list know of any > > programs that need/want the block interface? If there are none, or > > It doesn't run on FreeBSD, but Sybase uses block devices for its dedicated > disk devices. There may be other RDBMSes that do this. > > David Scheidt > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910121530190.15048-100000>