From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 16 13:30:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB2837B401 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clunix.cl.msu.edu (clunix.cl.msu.edu [35.9.2.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2C043EA9 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:30:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu) Received: (from jerrymc@localhost) by clunix.cl.msu.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g9GKUia21490; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:30:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Jerry McAllister Message-Id: <200210162030.g9GKUia21490@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: using an extended partition for freebsd To: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Cc: jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu (Jerry McAllister), jmd17@columbia.edu, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Gary W. Swearingen" at Oct 16, 2002 12:43:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > Right. An extended partition is something MS came up with to get around > > some historical narrow thinking. FreeBSD doesn't need that. > > Be careful there. The BSD OSes essentially do the same thing, except > they allow four "extended" partitions and use different internal formats > and names: > primary partition -> slice > secondary partition -> partition Sort of, but not quite. FreeBSD partitions divide up slices in to nice neat separately mountable (if they are made in to file systems) independantly addressable units. > I think we should use the IBM jargon. While the slice/partition jargon > is a bit cleaner, the benefit is not worth the costs in continually > needing to explain the differences in documents and support forums, > and giving newbies another reason to return to what they know best. I don't agree there. Using slice & partition within slice is more clear thatn partition and extended partition and may make newbees heave a sigh of relief. > > It just needs slices (which are called partitions by Microsloth). > > Actually, it doesn't. FreeBSD can just have what it calls "partitions", > in which case there won't be a "partition table". But "they" recommend > having one slice anyway; I guess to support software (eg, on a Linux > disk) thatexpects the more common disk layout. Yes, the socalled "dangerously dedicated" disk, sure. On today's large disks there is little reason to do it that way. ////jerry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message