Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:23:59 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Aragon Gouveia <aragon@phat.za.net> Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: partitioning dilemma Message-ID: <77D899EE-78D1-4AC1-A4C9-AF09DD1A8CF1@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC1D62C.5070705@phat.za.net> References: <4DC1D62C.5070705@phat.za.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Aragon Gouveia wrote:
>
> My attempts at using MBR and EBR instead of GPT are discouraging once I get to the point of creating an EBR. From what I can gather, default kernel build options specify "options GEOM_PART_EBR_COMPAT" which prevents GEOM from editing EBR partition schemes:
>
> # gpart show ada3s4
> => 0 267068592 ada3s4 EBR (127G)
> 0 267068592 - free - (127G)
>
> # gpart add -s 67221504 -t freebsd ada3s4
> gpart: pre-check failed: Operation canceled
>
> Ok, so I guess I can recompile without that kernel option, but I'm sure there's a good reason it's a default option... Is EBR also considered a Bad Idea?
The reason GEOM_PART_EBR_COMPAT is there and is enabled by default
is only because you get the legacy naming that way. That is, it
gives you ada3s5, ada3s6, etc. If you don't care about the legacy
naming of device special files, you can remove GEOM_PART_EBR_COMPAT
safely and enjoy the ability to modify the partitioning scheme.
The fully-qualified logical partition name looks like:
ata3s4+${lba}
FYI,
--
Marcel Moolenaar
marcel@xcllnt.net
--
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?77D899EE-78D1-4AC1-A4C9-AF09DD1A8CF1>