Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:50:28 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAQ Section 2.15... Message-ID: <Mutt.19970118225028.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199701182020.NAA12396@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on Jan 18, 1997 13:20:27 -0700 References: <Mutt.19970117221558.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199701182020.NAA12396@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Terry Lambert wrote:
> DISK
> |
> V
> DOS primary 1 -> DOS
> *partition* 3 -> BSD "partition" 1 -> a
> table 2 -> b
> 3 -> c
> 4 -> d
> 5 -> e
> 6 -> f
> 7 -> g
> 8 -> h
> 4 -> DOS extended 1 -> DOS
(Btw., to the best of my knowledge, DOS uses/allows only one
subpartition here, you need to continue chaining for more.)
> *partition* 2 -> linux boot
> table 3 -> linux swap
> 4 -> linux user
> ^ ^
> | |
> 1 2
>
> *** SURPRISE! ***
> *** SURPRISE! ***
> *** SURPRISE! ***
(No surprise, but actuall crap. The tenfold indirection with 15
intermediate "partition tables", i mean.)
But now, how about this one?
DISK
|
V
DOS primary 1 -> DOS (sd0s1)
2 -> empty (sd0s2)
*partition* 3 -> BSD slice 1 -> a (sd0s3a)
table (sd0s3) 2 -> b .
3 -> c .
4 -> d .
5 -> e
6 -> f
7 -> g
8 -> h (sd0s3h)
4 -> DOS extended 1 -> DOS (sd0s5)
*partition* 2 -> linux boot (sd0s6)
table (sd0s4) 3 -> linux swap (sd0s7)
4 -> BSD slice -> a (sd0s8a)
(sd0s8) -> b .
-> c .
-> d .
-> e
-> f
-> g
-> h (sd0s8h)
Still one more level.
DOS doesn't really have multiple layers, since they squeeze the
chained tables into a flat namespace. This is much different from the
dual-level slice/partition approach FreeBSD is using now. The entire
DOS view is still maintained (called "slice", also a flat namespace),
and the "partition" level is added below. You know as well as me that
the use of the term "partition" in BSD has enough of historic
precedent to warrant it. I think it also historically precedes the
term "partition" introduced by the fdisk table, but it doesn't matter.
We decided to leave the term "partition" as it has been used in
386BSD, FreeBSD 1 etc. However you're whining about this, there _is_
a conflict of names, and you have to break with some historic
tradition on either end. My loudest complaint was that you should not
knowingly confuse other users (who are not that confident with the
terminology yet), just to prove your ego (or what else you try to
achieve). Our terminology is settled, and we won't change it for
Terry Lambert.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970118225028.j>