From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sun Jul 8 00:35:28 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511D61041666 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 00:35:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x444.google.com (mail-wr1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::444]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B28A875006 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 00:35:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x444.google.com with SMTP id h10-v6so7413524wre.6 for ; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQeX2RYUBLw6vBesrx5l3ob1kdg5p6w7MwxECG7HFRg=; b=EaiV/70b9YOkPiygoMFQl82CvnedpdgH1e5RJlJDDJb5Cgd1m8d5q2FWW+NaOli9AZ TfM5krzi49MbLt3aFrIY22D74JSNsnCXRxWckcJkZug1aaLMFGjbBq79eDlCSKSSCg6F lti2VyzCBH7lTkxilBfGhb7M374t3VmAa4m8260/2nK9l3HPiVvhr/SNylJlaolxPuqu Cwf/hgSa4I1C/8xKJrhybDdl3DSGuqs/lbQTb+gVejTQz1/10wQkZF284nl+y8qIET3e miGJ13lRBXIxMlsOZr3pscdGM7xPnTcJuOEpUT4c8T/6uDg3+FCCSTvSAvno0yAyCIAP dKDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3TGNs9sLnrVVd7NYOYd5C99zPO5zNQ035EAo0Fc5u0YFgDAvV0 Akro0yZXMQDZoG/dgMAEEr1dKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfa5GyowDejxRU+BYoItGKw/61+DfDp+lDuIqTQTAotTYJfOs9Prjw4d66QxdL5LNsWNkx+4A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a541:: with SMTP id j1-v6mr12413141wrb.155.1531010126389; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([2.222.27.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j131-v6sm15216484wmb.25.2018.07.07.17.35.24 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:35:23 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-ID: <20180708013523.3f52a997@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <20180707231908.65a2e973.freebsd@edvax.de> <20180708001336.4097d20e.freebsd@edvax.de> <6bbfdaad-6872-1a6b-f176-471e57ac8d0a@yandex.com> <20180708004645.5a39c930.freebsd@edvax.de> <939bdcac-d9c3-2863-0e83-e1e87b61ded8@yandex.com> <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; amd64-portbld-freebsd11.1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:35:28 -0000 On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530 Manish Jain wrote: > On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote: > > They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore. > > All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR. > > We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets > recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is > freebsd::freebsd-ufs. > > If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for > eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). Any > extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in > the BSD. > > Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the > user in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the > past (when there presumably was no EBR nest). I think it did exist, but BSD avoided the mistake made by Linux in adopting the EBR kludge. If you need multiple OSs instances on a drive, it's self-evidently better to label their partitions hierarchically rather then number them in a flat space.