Re: devfs
Michael Neuffer (neuffer@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de)
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:11:05 +0100 (MET)
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