From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sun Jul 8 01:17:44 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFCA1046122 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:17:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jude.obscure@yandex.com) Received: from forward103p.mail.yandex.net (forward103p.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1472:2741:0:8b7:106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "forwards.mail.yandex.net", Issuer "Yandex CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5752775AD for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:17:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jude.obscure@yandex.com) Received: from mxback1g.mail.yandex.net (mxback1g.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1472:2741:0:8b7:162]) by forward103p.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 319802181D69; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:17:41 +0300 (MSK) Received: from smtp2o.mail.yandex.net (smtp2o.mail.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::26]) by mxback1g.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id XWFXye1pTx-Hf10odqu; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 04:17:41 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1531012661; bh=47+84kacJGDUws3+tqr4wBSqfktQYRnbYtXkp36ufAc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To; b=caEvfLxbtvmYfcCSAkkyWEgDTk3PZkwElm1b30S5K4okIA9SZYUJMrPTdKomMKkPt d7hDJEuEaH8I/1lSgnwq6QhTM7ZyFanvp4lEWlkgVym0IsLViib7Y/LNr89bUIkPqz xRYLeJynjVGG+4dFN8rHD+51Wc424EJyWxwxjjI8= Received: by smtp2o.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id U0jr4Nlmk5-Hd34hWxs; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 04:17:40 +0300 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1531012660; bh=47+84kacJGDUws3+tqr4wBSqfktQYRnbYtXkp36ufAc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To; b=trewKVGtuK4OIOerel8OOHn1Ka0Mv1eiltClyW83wgUXRW0K39dTBBh7qucj7DGJx 2X2WAPty4Re71jFGLCOXMtzVKYxzpG5bHnP5pLsmgCrc32wKFXwHUR8SmXqFUeRhhe gfNJ3iHfl4Q/lTLQAUSYk7sRdOTqeiBBDIcF45Bo= Authentication-Results: smtp2o.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.com Subject: Re: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR To: RW , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <20180707231908.65a2e973.freebsd@edvax.de> <20180708001336.4097d20e.freebsd@edvax.de> <6bbfdaad-6872-1a6b-f176-471e57ac8d0a@yandex.com> <20180708004645.5a39c930.freebsd@edvax.de> <939bdcac-d9c3-2863-0e83-e1e87b61ded8@yandex.com> <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de> <20180708013523.3f52a997@gumby.homeunix.com> From: Manish Jain Message-ID: <50aade00-40a4-ffd9-3900-b18145d5cd47@yandex.com> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 06:45:37 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180708013523.3f52a997@gumby.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 01:17:44 -0000 On 07/08/18 06:05, RW via freebsd-questions wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530 > Manish Jain wrote: > >> On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote: >>> They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore. >> >> All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR. >> >> We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets >> recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is >> freebsd::freebsd-ufs. >> >> If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for >> eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). Any >> extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in >> the BSD. >> >> Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the >> user in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the >> past (when there presumably was no EBR nest). > > I think it did exist, but BSD avoided the mistake made by Linux in > adopting the EBR kludge. > > If you need multiple OSs instances on a drive, it's self-evidently > better to label their partitions hierarchically rather then number > them in a flat space. Hi RW, I submit to the wisdom of choices BSD made, and continues to make. Which is why I use FreeBSD - very proudly - as my only OS. Noone can legitimately claim better claim better solutions than envisaged by Berkeley. But in my humble opinion, the right way to treat MBR is simply as GPT (with the number of partitions permitted not 128, but 3 - with 128 non-bootable extras relegated to a system the MBR schema itself provides for). Who gains today for the loss of the user who cannot create UFS partitions in MBR ? Thanks and a hope that someone will see a point in my humble request. Manish Jain