Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:59:02 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bigger boot block size? Message-ID: <2048.1126457942@phk.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:50:46 MDT." <43246066.8070709@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <43246066.8070709@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> There are perfectly good arguments for metadata at front and metadata >> at the end and none of the arguments is definitive. >> >There are actually very good arguments for putting the metadata at the >end of the components. Consider that it means that you can boot a >gmirror array without system BIOS support. Yes, and it doesn't screw up stripe alignment etc. But there are also good arguments for putting it up front, which is why I don't want to impose either view on anybody. This also makes a lot of sense since we don't get to dictate the majority of disk metadata rules. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2048.1126457942>