Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:29:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: drive layout Message-ID: <14779.50412.25390.255657@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <83414335@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Salvo Bartolotta writes: > AdNsi is, IIRC, an old (compatibility) scheme. I am not quite sure how > it works when you have more than one slice on the same disk (e.g. > ad0s1a, ad0s1e, ad0s1f; ad0s2a, ad0s2e, ad0s2f ...); on the other > hand, I use the ordinary label(l)ing in my /etc/fstab. Is that a typo? Do you really mean "adNi"? (i.e. - ad0a, ad1c, etc?). If so, that was the original BSD naming scheme, and is probably still used on systems with disks that don't have slices. In particular, it was used for dangerously dedicated disks on FreeBSD at one point. Those disks don't have more than one slice. These days, the name adNx and adNs1x are identical (i.e. - I get the same file systems for them on either a DD or a sliced disk on -current). However, I continue using the adNx names for dangerously dedicated disks. Not only does it make logical sense, it is then obvious that they *are* DD, so you don't try tweaking the slice table. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14779.50412.25390.255657>