Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sef From: sef@uunet.UU.NET ( comp.std.unix) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs Subject: Re: Incremental sync()s and using disk idle time Message-ID: <125038@uunet.UU.NET> Date: 10 Mar 91 02:49:41 GMT References: <1991Mar7.115154.4820@hq.demos.su> <1991Mar8.142031.9098@bellcore.b Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA Lines: 21 In article kinch@no31sun.csd.uwo.ca (Dave Kinchlea) writes: >Actually I have been having quite the oposite thoughts lately. It seems to me >that it would be highly advantagous (in the general case) to take all of >the filesystem information out of the kernel and give it to the I/O controller. Ye gods, no!!!! What kind of filesystem are you going to use? V7? BSD? MS-DOS? OS/2 HFS? MFS (Mike's FileSystem; something a friend of mine has been playing with)? CD-ROM-type? (I forget the standards number that it goes by.) What kind of characters are you going to allow/disallow in filenames? How about file seperators? How are you going to implement mount points? The point of all that ranting and raving is: no matter what filesystem you choose, someone will come up with a better one. Back to the original thread: no matter how intelligent you make your disk controller, someone is going to want to bypass it. -- Sean Eric Fagan, moderator, comp.std.unix.