Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:49:38 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de>, Andre Albsmeier <andre@akademie3000.de>, Marc Tardif <intmktg@CAM.ORG>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Partitioning (was: ccd with other filesystems) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010031245300.8594-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200010022052.NAA10099@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I strongly object to the Microsoft "partition" table, and I don't use > > > it myself. And of course you're welcome to use whatever you find > > > convenient. It's not until you advocate making this a standard way > > > that anybody can have any objection. > > > > Why? It is only broken in different ways than the BSD label. > > The PReP specification makes it crystal clear how you can > support up to 2^32 sectors with the DOS partition table > mechanism. It's perhaps the best documentation I've ever This is well known. It's more interesting that you can support up to about 2^32 partitions (all empty) or about 2^31 partitions (1 sector each). The main problems with the DOS partition table is that it has no signatures or checksums. > PS: That's 112 TB, in LBA mode. Only about 2TB. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010031245300.8594-100000>