Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 21:37:59 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: alain@Wit401402.student.utwente.nl, current@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Of slices and boot code.. Message-ID: <199508231137.VAA18265@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Well, you must admit that this example is a little contrived and if >such insane nesting were required because the user was trying to >shoe-horn FreeBSD into a system already so dedicated to DOS and Linux, >well, then so be it. I'm trying to keep the most common scenarios as >simple and clean as possible and, truth be told, if someone REALLY >wanted to install FreeBSD in such a convoluted environment then I'd >say that the naming would be the least of their worries! Another try. The following naming schemes for slices exist or are being considered: DOS FreeBSD Linux what you asked for -- ------ ---- ----- C: sd0s1 sda1 sd0s1 ### assume there is only one drive so that some DOS drive letters ### aren't for other drives D: sd0s2 sda2 sd0s2 E: sd0s3 sda3 sd0s3 F: sd0s4 sda4 sd0s4 ### end of slices on MBR ### assume sd0s4 is an extended slice and the only extended slice G: sd0s5 sda5 sd0s4e0 H: sd0s6 sda6 sd0s4e1 I: sd0s7 sda7 sd0s4e2 J: sd0s8 sda8 sd0s4e3 K: sd0s9 sda9 sd0s4e4 L: sd0s10 sda10 sd0s4e5 M: sd0s11 sda11 sd0s4e6 N: sd0s12 sda12 sd0s4e7 O: sd0s13 sda13 sd0s4e8 P: sd0s14 sda14 sd0s4e9 Q: sd0s15 sda15 sd0s4e10 R: sd0s16 can't handle sd0s4e11 S: sd0s17 " sd0s4e12 T: sd0s18 " sd0s4e13 U: sd0s19 " sd0s4e14 V: sd0s20 " sd0s4e15 W: sd0s21 " sd0s4e16 X: sd0s22 " sd0s4e17 Y: sd0s23 " sd0s4e18 Z: sd0s24 " sd0s4e19 can't handle sd0s25 " sd0s4e20 " sd0s26 " sd0s4e21 " sd0s27 " sd0s4e22 " sd0s28 " sd0s4e23 " sd0s29 " sd0s4e24 " sd0s30 " sd0s4e25 Which do you prefer? :-) Which is the least consistent? >More to the point, I have yet to get a single tech-support query from >someone with all 4 MBR slots filled. It just doesn't seem to happen >that way. I think that my proposal still has merit. This is probably because people with 4 MBR slots filled have probably practiced running fdisk at least 3 times more than people with 1 MBR slot filled. >> >I'm still not clear on whether or not those last patches of yours will >> >enable me to yank the "compatibility hacks" out of sysinstall. I >> >surely would like to as it would actually simplify the code >> >considerably! >> >> It would also simplify the kernel code considerably. >So. Um. You're saying that this is planned/done/on the way? I'm >still a little unclear on that.. :-) I didn't have the compatibility hacks originally, but it became obvious that there would be too many problems getting everyone converted without them. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508231137.VAA18265>