From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Sep 2 20:18:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (sirius-giga.rz.uni-ulm.de [134.60.241.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA6F37B423 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmx.de (lilith.wohnheim.uni-ulm.de [134.60.106.64]) by mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00207; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 05:18:30 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <39B1C305.BC97ED3C@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:18:29 +0200 From: Siegbert Baude X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Uhring , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: 4.1-STABLE BOOT SLICE PROBLEM References: <000c01c01546$f334ed40$0101a8c0@noproblem.net> <00090221070200.18474@dave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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