Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:18:29 +0200 From: Siegbert Baude <siegbert.baude@gmx.de> To: David Uhring <duhring@charter.net>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 4.1-STABLE BOOT SLICE PROBLEM Message-ID: <39B1C305.BC97ED3C@gmx.de> References: <000c01c01546$f334ed40$0101a8c0@noproblem.net> <00090221070200.18474@dave>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi David,
> > So a 'dangerously dedicated disk', having nothing to do with Microsoft, has
> > essentially no slice, just partitions. Am I right?
> > But I find it confusing that FreeBSD uses the 's' of slice in its naming
> > terminology : '/dev/da0s1a' for instance, whilst other versions of BSD omit
> > the 'slice information' and would call the root file system '/dev/da0a'
> > instead. I understand that FreeBSD support this terminology too
> > ('compatibility slice naming'), but it's all confusing for me: when
> > Microsoft 'partitions' are not there AT ALL (as it is the case in a
> > 'dangerously dedicated disk'), why then use the term 'slice'?
Think of the whole disk as one single slice, then the complication has gone.
BTW, as a result from a thread on the stable mailing list: 'dangerously
dedicated disks' shouldn´t be used anymore. Some today´s motherboards don´t like
them and in the future (I think it was the IA64 architecture, but i´m not
completely sure) there MUST be a MBR with valid partition table under all
circumstances. Check the archives for more details.
> > >> I used /stand/sysinstall to create a "dangerously dedicated" disk and to
> > >> custom label it. Thereafter, I mounted the new slices...
> > >
> > > Huh? A dangerously dedicated disk has no slices.
> >
> > Sure it does. Up to 15 of them. What it doesn't have is
> > partitions.
Exactly the other way round or I´m stoned ´til "delirium tremens". :-)
See my other mail for this.
> See the Handbook, Section 2.4.2, where Microsoft "partitions" are discussed.
> Even though the BIOS - read Microsoft - partitions are limited to 4 primary
> partitions, BSD's and Solaris's "slice" tables do not reside in the MBR, but
> rather in the first sector of the partition on which BSD or Solaris resides.
> Partitions are configured with fdisk and slices are configured with disklabel.
> You should see what Linux 2.4.0-test7 reports as the geometry of my primary HD.
> Until I got rid of Solaris and used its space for FreeBSD and OpenBSD, I had
> 32 /dev/hda*. Yes, it is confusing that FreeBSD uses 's' to designate
> partitions. Get used to it.
What the heck are you citing here? Section 2.4.2 is about troubleshooting. One
hint that DOS partitions d: and above are numbered ad0s5 and above.
What you call BSD´s and Solaris "slice" tables in the above section are actually
the disklabels, which contain the information about Unix partitions. The
DOS-partition tables in the MBR and the extended partition contain the
information about Unix slices (alias DOS partitions). Therefore within Unix they
should be called slice tables. DOT
Unix uses s to designate DOS-partitions, because they´re called slices there.
Unix partitions don´t exist in DOS-parlance. NEVER call them slices, this is
CONFUSING.
Ciao
Siegbert
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39B1C305.BC97ED3C>