On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On Saturday 31 July 2004 12:00, Walker, Bruce J wrote: > > > >>In the 2.4 implementation, providing this one capability by > >>leveraging devfs was quite economic, efficient and has been very stable. > > > > > > I wonder if device-mapper (slightly hacked) wouldn't be a better approach for > > 2.6+. > > It appeared from the original posting that their "cluster-wide devfs" > actually supported all types of device nodes, not just block devices. I > don't know whether accessing a character device on another node would > ever be useful, but certainly using device-mapper wouldn't help for that > case. Does the reduced function 2.6 devfs still have what's needed? If it does then you should have a fair amount of breathing space.