[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [2.4.0] migration to devfs

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:34:07PM -0500, S.Salman Ahmed wrote:
> I have one question regarding devfs: does it offer any performance
> improvements over the traditional non-devfs setup, or is devfs simply a
> 'structural' change ?

i fail to see how typing:


instead of /dev/hda1 or /dev/wd0a whenever i need to do anything
related to raw devices is a performance improvment.  nor is writing
huge kludgy initscripts or bloated daemons just so i can do:

chgrp wheel /dev/somedevice
chmod 660 /dev/somedevice 

and have it stick.  (past reboots)

as for anyone attempting to make the silly claim that /dev has
thousands of devices and thus incurs the evil ext2fs directory
slowness ask them why they are not turning /usr/bin into a fake

[eb@plato eb]$ ls -1 /dev | wc -l
[eb@plato eb]$ ls -1 /usr/bin | wc -l
[eb@plato eb]$

the only directory on my system which i can even percieve the
slightest slowdown is /var/lib/dpkg/info, and even then its hardly
noticable nor anything to cry about:

[eb@plato eb]$ ls -1 /var/lib/dpkg/info | wc -l
[eb@plato eb]$

better solutions to ext2 directory performance is fix the filesystem,
reiserfs does not have this problem and i think ext3 does not either. 

the only other argument i ever hear is whining about device files with
no corrosponding device, well i could care less. if i will never will
have the device and it bothers me THAT much rm -f /dev/somedevice*. 
otherwise its nice to know exactly what permissions some hardware will
have before installing it.  /dev is not a database of what hardware is
installed, that belongs to /sbin/lspci and /proc (though proc is a
hideous mess, everything except processes should have been moved to
/kern long ago)

anyway thats just my rant on the subject, if you like devfs use it,
but leave it an OPTION so i can leave it off.  (and not an `option'
like proc has become where you have the option to turn off and have a
useless broken system)

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpBbfBMC5LHU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: