On Thursday, 23 December 1999 at 21:29:08 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> seems to work fine,
> except that now we don't have block devices any more
> so every time it gets stuff off disk, it's REALLY SLOW.
>
> I guess a virtual machine is the "App that no-one could put their finger
> on" that r
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> It is not out of the question to bring buffered disk access back,
> but it will be an ioctl enabled function for disks, not a vnode
> mode. Peter has suggested doing it with a layered device a'la vn(4).
Actually that was me.
To Unsubscribe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas David Rivers writes
:
>> seems to work fine,
>> except that now we don't have block devices any more
>> so every time it gets stuff off disk, it's REALLY SLOW.
>>
>> I guess a virtual machine is the "App that no-one could put their finger
>> on" that really
> seems to work fine,
> except that now we don't have block devices any more
> so every time it gets stuff off disk, it's REALLY SLOW.
>
> I guess a virtual machine is the "App that no-one could put their finger
> on" that really could do with buffered (caching) devices.
Hmmm I wonder what
seems to work fine,
except that now we don't have block devices any more
so every time it gets stuff off disk, it's REALLY SLOW.
I guess a virtual machine is the "App that no-one could put their finger
on" that really could do with buffered (caching) devices.
of course this is w98.
FreeBSD 1.1
