Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:58:46 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@mail.ru> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disklabel differences FreeBSD, DragonFly Message-ID: <20060730125846.GA89899@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <200607300656.k6U6udJt003335@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20060727063936.GA1246@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20060727122159.GB4217@britannica.bec.de> <20060727202528.GA14954@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <200607282236.k6SMaRlj089446@apollo.backplane.com> <20060729141313.GA43548@hades.panopticon> <200607300656.k6U6udJt003335@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matthew Dillon (dillon@apollo.backplane.com) wrote: > Oh, very cute! A terrible hack if you ask me, but cute all the same! I don't consider it a hack. Pretty expected and consistent behaviour - any block device (be it a whole disk or just a partition) is scanned by geom for magic numbers, and if any found, corresponding subdevices do appear. This gives amazing flexibility - you can choose whether to use any partitioning scheme (you can drop slices at all), you are not limited to 4 slices * 7 partitions. Also, you may dd a whole disk image into partition of enough size, and still be able to mount subpartitions of that image (or boot qemu from it) without md(4) overhead (of course MBR slices can be nested as well - you'll get ad0s1s1 or ad1s1as1). Very cute indeed :) -- Best regards, Dmitry mailto:amdmi3@mail.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060730125846.GA89899>