From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Smirl Subject: Re: [RFC] VM: I have a dream... Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:03:58 -0500 Message-ID: <9e4733910601251603n543dbe3ej93286743b01eef6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <43D28189.3080407@argo.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.196]:29078 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751192AbWAZAEC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:04:02 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i3so307437wra for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:04:01 -0800 (PST) To: Bryan Henderson In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 1/23/06, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >Perhaps you'd be interested in single-level store architectures, where > >no distinction is made between memory and storage. IBM uses it in one > >(or maybe more) of their systems. Are there any Linux file systems that work by mmapping the entire drive and using the paging system to do the read/writes? With 64 bits there's enough address space to do that now. How does this perform compared to a traditional block based scheme? With the IBM 128b address space aren't the devices vulnerable to an errant program spraying garbage into the address space? Is it better to map each device into it's own address space? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com