On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> Bill, Greg, others:
>
> I do understand the desire to support filesystems > 1TByte.
> I agree that we should do something _right_ to support that.
>
> But don't forget that there are *other* closely-related features,
> features which some of us have been wanting for a long time, and we
> should fix _those_ while we're at it.
>
> The specific features we're missing which I think should be fix:
>     1. Mounting non-NetBSD filesystems  (from NetBSD).
>
> Specific features, which we currently support, which we shouldn't lose:
>
>    2. Mounting native NetBSD filesystems (< 1TB) from other 4.4-Lite
>       derived OSes.

How do those comments follow from the rest of the thread? We've not been
talking about file systems.

> _Requiring_ a userspace daemon, configured by some private-to-NetBSD
> database/config-file option, is a big step away from how NetBSD has
> traditionally worked.  Following in the footsteps of AIX and its LVM
> (as Bill seems to propose) sounds like madness.

???

So what exactly is wrong with an LVM? Have you used one?

Having nothing BUT an LVM would be undesirable, yes. But no one has
proposed that.

Also, what's wrong with a userland daemon? Yes, the database to configure
wedges is something I object to, but what alternative to a userland daemon
do we have?

Encode everything in the kernel? That scales like crap, and means we have
to bloat kernels or not be able to read a class of disks.

Run a userland program to read info off of the disk? It's about the same
thing as a userland daemon, but more manual?

> Here are a couple of examples:
>
> *  Suppose I have a CF with an MS-dos filesystem that I'd like to
>    mount on-the-fly (via a pcmia slot or a USB reader). Pretend its from
>    a digital camera, if it helps.
>
> * Mounting other Uni* filesystems. I've seen a number of NetBSD developers
>   using multiboot systems with both NetBSD and other OSes. Some are folks
>   like darrenr, who target FreeBSD in addition to NetBSD; I've also seen
>   comments from people with employer-provided laptops running FreeBSD or
>   Linux, with NetBSD in a `spare' partition.
>
>
> The way I've read Bill's proposal, any of these would require both a
> userspace daemon, and entries in some private-to-NetBSD config file.

You did not read my proposal well.

As for the userland daemon, it would read the disk partition tables and
shove a diskpart into the kernel for it. What's the big deal?

> That's an awfully high burden for something that should ``just work'';
> does it really pass muster for what the NetBSD project has (so far)
> considerd acceptable?  When compared to (say) support for cardbus or
> pcmcia devices?

Take care,

Bill