From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 22 13:13:58 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DA4106564A for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:13:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@banshee.munuc.org) Received: from banshee.munuc.org (cl-106.chi-02.us.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:4978:f:69::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D1D8FC17 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nwhitehorn (helo=localhost) by banshee.munuc.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QvUKA-000Mdk-Pp; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:13:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:13:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Nathan Whitehorn X-X-Sender: nwhitehorn@banshee.munuc.org To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" In-Reply-To: <4E51E019.4060206@yandex.ru> Message-ID: References: <4E4DB9A7.4040404@freebsd.org> <4E517978.2020705@freebsd.org> <64622705-80AB-4FEF-91E9-8F3041818B4E@xcllnt.net> <4E519C13.4060700@freebsd.org> <4E51E019.4060206@yandex.ru> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: Nathan Whitehorn X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: nwhitehorn@banshee.munuc.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on banshee.munuc.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: Garrett Cooper , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: Well, there goes Windows! X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0000 On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 22.08.2011 4:00, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> The larger problem is that this behavior means that destroying gparts sometimes doesn't work at >> all. For instance, if you have nested partitioning like MBR+BSD (or EBR) it is not possible to >> destroy the underlying MBR geom without committing the destruction of the BSD geom. This is >> because the MBR geom cannot be destroyed, even without committing, while it continues to have >> children, which it does due to the ghost geom for the BSD slice. > > Actually you can destroy underlying MBR geom without committing, just use "force" flag. > But there is another problem, the metadata of nested scheme will not deleted and it might > appear again when you create new MBR and new partition in the same place. This isn't true for nested partitioning, at least in my experience. -Nathan > -- > WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov > >