Hello All,
When configuring a Linux kernel 2.6.x series to enable the raw device support,
it states this as being obsolete and deprecated. The suggestion is to use
the O_DIRECT flag when opening the device name. I can see how this could be
possible from inside an application where the system
Hi,
> Perhaps someone here could offer some suggestions.
I take that for "any suggestions" and (again) advise DVD writer
programs like growisofs or cdrecord-ProDVD.
With growisofs i roughly use
formatter_program | \
growisofs -use-the-force-luke -dvd-compat -Z /dev/sr0=/proc/self/fd/0
On Saturday 21 May 2005 05:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Perhaps someone here could offer some suggestions.
>
> I take that for "any suggestions" and (again) advise DVD writer
> programs like growisofs or cdrecord-ProDVD.
>
> With growisofs i roughly use
>
> formatter_program | \
> g
Hi,
> For my own history I have been using tar output piped to sdd to be directly
> written using the raw device drivers for about 3 years now I think on many
> servers. This use requires a kernel patch available from Andy for 2.4
> series kernels and 2.6 series kernels have not required a pat
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:16:46AM -0400, James Finnall wrote:
> On Saturday 21 May 2005 05:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Just for curiosity: when did this raw device thingee
> > start to work ? Is it a spinoff from udf-tools ? How
> > official did it become inbetween ? I'm still using kernel
James Finnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When configuring a Linux kernel 2.6.x series to enable the raw device
> support,
> it states this as being obsolete and deprecated. The suggestion is to use
> the O_DIRECT flag when opening the device name. I can see how this could be
> possible fro
James Finnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 2.6.10 kernel sources for the raw device driver sources do not offer
> any history within the contents. So I do not know when the implementation
> of the device structure itself was first started or where. I did see a
> statement that included th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes. For me it works with ISO9600 or afio format as well as
> with permuted and multiplied images.
Me careful with the afio archive format.
It is non standard and only looks similar to cpio.
You definitely will need afio to unpack in most cases.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAI
Ambrose Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Support for raw block devices is indeed not Linux-specific.
> IIRC, it was an answer to commercial database vendors, who
> insisted at the time that without raw devices, Linux was not
Character devices have been in UNIX long before commercial databases
have
> > It was also stated that in the next kernel development of 2.7 that raw
> > device
> > support could be removed. Now I suppose that might be changed by popular
> > demand as well.
>
> I believe that the reason for not implementing raw devices on Linux was the
> fact
> that Linux was design
Dave Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe that the reason for not implementing raw devices on Linux was the
> > fact
> > that Linux was designed for x86 and the way Linux did implement DMA to
> > devices
> > would have made a raw device slower than a buffered device.
>
> I believe tha
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I believe that the reason for not implementing raw devices on Linux was
> > > the fact
> > > that Linux was designed for x86 and the way Linux did implement DMA to
> > > devices
> > > would have made a ra
Dave Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I believe that the reason for not implementing raw devices on Linux was
> > > > the fact
> > > > that Linux was designed for x86 and the way Linux did implemen
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. For me it works with ISO9600 or afio format as well as
with permuted and multiplied images.
Me careful with the afio archive format.
It is non standard and only looks similar to cpio.
You definitely will need afio to unpack in mos
Joerg Schilling wrote:
James Finnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When configuring a Linux kernel 2.6.x series to enable the raw device support,
it states this as being obsolete and deprecated. The suggestion is to use
the O_DIRECT flag when opening the device name. I can see how this coul
Dave Platt wrote:
It does have certain limitations, granted - you have to be careful
about your buffer alignments, and you have to explicitly ask for it
(via binding a /dev/raw/* device in 2.4, and now via O_DIRECT in
2.6). It doesn't come "for free" - normal, standard disk I/O
still goes throu
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still unhappy with cpio? I usually use "-oB -Hcrc" to get by-file CRC
> checking.
>
> I know about star, but cpio is more likely to be on the other end if I'm
> sending to offsite users.
The cpio archive format (it's rather a group of incompatible form
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there WERE /dev/raw devices on Linux. You are correct that they
> don't work the way UNIX raw devices do, but the capability was there in
> 2.4, and I think in 2.2. Quite fast in 2.4!
I did write that they were missing in Linux-2.2.
If you have an
18 matches
Mail list logo
