f...@netbsd.org (Erik Fair) writes:
>On Jun 23, 2011, at 23:19 , Michael van Elst wrote:
>> s...@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>>
>>> The point is that when dealing with raw devices, you take what the hardware
>>> gives you. 6th Edition could have detected this and copied the user data
>>> into a properly-aligned buffer, with the corresponding performance hit.
>>> Instead, it said "this is the way the hardware works; adapt".
>>
>> I bet at that time block devices were still usuable...
>Define "unusable"?
Similar to raw devices in performance, I/O caching, and without the
hardware constraints regarding block sizes or alignment. I.e. something
that lets you treat disk contents like a regular file.
>Of course, if you want to talk about really slow I/O with massive latency,
>let's talk about random access to DECtapes ...
Oh, I was talking about current NetBSD where block devices are a
second class citizen, soon to be abolished if someone finds enough
round tuits.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
