Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:08:18 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E4r?= Thoren <t98pth@student.hk-r.se>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: drive layout Message-ID: <20000911.9081800@bartequi.ottodomain.org> In-Reply-To: <14779.50412.25390.255657@guru.mired.org> References: <14779.50412.25390.255657@guru.mired.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[not quite sure whether to send this to -questions or -chat] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 9/10/00, 6:29:16 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote regarding Re: drive layout: > Salvo Bartolotta writes: > > AdNsi is, IIRC, an old (compatibility) scheme. I am not quite sure how > > it works when you have more than one slice on the same disk (e.g. > > ad0s1a, ad0s1e, ad0s1f; ad0s2a, ad0s2e, ad0s2f ...); on the other > > hand, I use the ordinary label(l)ing in my /etc/fstab. > Is that a typo? Do you really mean "adNi"? (i.e. - ad0a, ad1c, etc?). > If so, that was the original BSD naming scheme, and is probably still > used on systems with disks that don't have slices. In particular, it > was used for dangerously dedicated disks on FreeBSD at one > point. Those disks don't have more than one slice. > These days, the name adNx and adNs1x are identical (i.e. - I get the > same file systems for them on either a DD or a sliced disk on > -current). However, I continue using the adNx names for dangerously > dedicated disks. Not only does it make logical sense, it is then > obvious that they *are* DD, so you don't try tweaking the slice table. > <mike You are quite right, it is a typo. Thanks for pointing it out, and for highlighting the topic. By the way, I wrote about the "compatibility" scheme as I recalled reading other posts to that effect. The term "compatibility" is probably not the best one to appropriately describe the situation. When installing OpenBSD 2.7 on my multiboot multidisk (multisliced) 'puter -- YAOS(tm) (Yet Another Operating System) -- I had run into the same scheme, mutatis mutandis: wdNx. N.B. In my workstation, OpenBSD lives in two slices on two different disks; in FreeBSD parlance, the slices are ad1s2 (/, swap /var) and ad2s2 (/usr); but OpenBSD utilizes the wdNx scheme all the same. Things seem to work as expected -- so far. Incidentally, since I chose a local diskIinstallation, I seamlessly accessed even the FreeBSD partitions via that scheme. Best regards, Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000911.9081800>