Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:11:05 +0100 (MET) | From | Michael Neuffer <> | Subject | Re: devfs |
| |
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > >> Another argument for devfs, is a sane scsi enumerating scheme (look to > >> other posts to find out why it's needed).. It would be difficult do handle > >> this (just to handle a single controler worth of names, accounting for > >> setting up names for 6 partitions and 3 luns would require 864 nodes, > >> idealy you would want to support 3 controlers, and the maximum luns > >> available).. > > > > This isn't an argument for devfs. This is an argument for a larger > > dev_t size. Before you can claim this as a reason for building a > > devfs, you need to detail exactly how a devfs is magically going to > > fix the above problem. > > Sanity check time! Let's see if your "fix" would work. > > bus 4 bits > unit 8 bits > LUN 8 bits > partition 6 bits > raw/cook/etc 2 bits > > Fine, /dev will be 4 to 8 GB. The linear search will be fun! > Seriously, a larger dev_t will _not_ fix this problem.
And that is only for one controller. Now imagine having several of them. A 12GB or even larger root partition would be real fun.
I can already see the smile on the faces of the hard disc manufacturers.....
Mike
| |