Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:08:23 -0800 From: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu (David O'Brien) To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Partition naming [Was: Adding Hard Drives - Prepping] Message-ID: <Mutt.19970117110823.obrien@dragon.cs.ucdavis.edu> In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19970117094342.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>; from J Wunsch on Jan 17, 1997 09:43:42 %2B0100 References: <Mutt.19970115100101.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199701170014.TAA17309@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <Mutt.19970117094342.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch writes: > As Joel Ray Holveck wrote: > > > > Sadly, yes. I wonder how they kept congruency with Solaris/Sparc. > > > Did they add an fdisk table to the latter, in order to keep the same > > > terminology? :) > > > > No, they added an fdisk table to the x86. > > Yes, and by this, they changed the use of the term `partition' from > their native partitions to the fdisk ones, so they also had to change > the name of their native partitions to `slice'. Now their terminology > does no longer match the Sparc version. Is it really that far off? Since disks under Solaris are /dev/dsk/c0t3d0s2 ==> controler 0, scsi target 3, disk 0 (ie. lun), and *slice* 2. [/dev/sd0c in the SunOS world] So maybe that's why they picked it the way they did. > Needless to say, there's no way to ``do the right thing'' here. Agreed. -- -- David (deobrien@ucdavis.edu)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970117110823.obrien>