Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:14:59 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@mail.ru> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: absolute vs. relative offsets in disklabel Message-ID: <20060801121459.GA81372@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <20060731205043.GD63872@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20060731203213.GA75233@hades.panopticon> <20060731205043.GD63872@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dan Nelson (dnelson@allantgroup.com) wrote: > > Recent `disklabel differences FreeBSD, DragonFly' thread gave me a > > thought - why do we have absolute offsets in disklabel? AFAIK, on > > NetBSD and OpenBSD, label is not necessarily located `near' > > filesystems stored in it's partitions - and even disklabel utility > > shows absolute offsets (with 'c' covering entire device). FreeBSD, > > however, seem to step far away from that standart - 8 partitions > > instead of 16, label located in the beginning of a partition, > > bsdlabel shows relative offsets. Now I wonder if there are any > > reasons for offsets to be actually absolute? There are many weighty > > arguments for relative offsets: > I asked this question a few years ago after having problems dd'ing a > FreeBSD installation from one disk to another, and the answer was "it's > always been that way" :) It shouldn't be too hard to have the code > autodetect whether the offsets are relative or absolute by looking at > what the 'c' partition's offset is. The only problem seem to be that older FreeBSD versions won't be able to use modified labels. -- Best regards, Dmitry mailto:amdmi3@mail.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060801121459.GA81372>