From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 21 11:51:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA06447 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA06429 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id UAA29479 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:51:02 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA24236; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:39:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19970421203928.LG60164@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:39:28 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disklabel -- owner? References: <199704211655.JAA13746@phaeton.artisoft.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199704211655.JAA13746@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on Apr 21, 1997 09:55:21 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Terry Lambert wrote: > > One of the problems is that you can't have more than 8 partitions in a > > slice, and two of those are stolen. /, swap, /usr, /var, /tmp, and > > one other and you are out. > > NetBSD has upped this to 16 (or was it OpenBSD). OpenBSD, but they didn't do it backwards-compatible, which is think is unacceptable if you've got an installed userbase. They use the fdisk ID 0xa6, IMHO. > One problem, I think, is with device organization: I think it's > idiotic to have 'c' and 'd' used the way they are; one can be Hmm, but that's not FreeBSD you're talking about, is it? The magicness of the `d' partition went away with the slice code in 2.0.5R. The magicness of the `c' partition simply solves the chicken-and-egg problem for an unlabelled disk. I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be a pseudo-partition, but either way, you'll end up with basically the same as there is now (since you need a minor number for it anyway), so why change the traditional method? POLA. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)