Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:36:01 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GEOM_PART: a quick update on logical partitions Message-ID: <9bbcef730902031536h5ec406b3h5e375cfdf9f4abc7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4988C908.1030002@FreeBSD.org> References: <FCA8C5E4-BC41-4711-9EBC-CD692144F6B8@mac.com> <20090203082153.565746e2@zelda.local> <b649e5e0902030357k7508b4e7kc69c31a354b3e077@mail.gmail.com> <gm9fh1$4el$1@ger.gmane.org> <4988C908.1030002@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/2/3 Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> >> Marius N=C3=BCnnerich wrote: >> >>> I'm not happy with the symlinks either. When someone is manipulating a >>> partition table she should be able to live with the consequences. I >>> would rather go for the UUID in UFS header approach if there is enough >>> room. BTW I implemented GPT UUID glabels a while ago please see: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D128398 >> >> I have a patch for UFS "GUID" labels (not exactly GUIDs, but every UFS >> file system has a reasonably unique ID associated with it) but have >> encountered what seems a bug in GEOM slicers - two dev entries pointing >> to the same device don't work well with orphaning/tasting. Have you >> encountered something similar perhaps? > > Why exactly do we need UFS "GUID" labels, when we already have GEOM_LABEL= , > which works just fine with UFS. So people don't need to make up dummy labels for dozens of file systems :) Also, "UFS GUIDs" are always present, even in root file systems created by sysinstall by default. It's a good idea.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730902031536h5ec406b3h5e375cfdf9f4abc7>