From owner-cvs-all  Fri Oct 25 10:55:10 2002
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D63C937B401; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6D0F943E4A; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA00658;
	Sat, 26 Oct 2002 03:54:45 +1000
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 04:05:55 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk>,
	Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>,
	<cvs-all@freebsd.org>, <cvs-committers@freebsd.org>,
	Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>,
	Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libdisk Makefile chunk.c write_alpha_dis 
In-Reply-To: <17783.1035552121@critter.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20021026035647.H4817-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <cvs-all.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20cvs-all>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20cvs-all>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <200210251307.g9PD7al6069458@dotar.thuvia.org>, Mark Valentine write
> s:
> >I guess we differ here in that I'm saying we *should* hide this implementation
> >detail by default for consistency with other platforms,
>
> You're making quite an assumption here it seems: BSD disklabels may not
> even be present on all platforms, and each partitioning scheme is free
> to choose its own naming.
>
> GPT labels for instance seems to use "${disk}${unit}[sp]%d"
>
> And finally you overlook that we may have to forego both MBR and BSD
> disklabels on any architecture where we want to use moderately large
> storage devices (2^31 * 512 bytes, possibly twice that).

Actually (2^32 * sector_size) for BSD labels, which can easily be 8 times
"that" (8TB for 2^32 sectors of size 2K).  The sector size doesn't need
to be physical, so anyone can use 8TB disks now provided they don't use
file systems with a fragment size (or is it a block size?) smaller than 2K.

BSD labels could easily be extended, but we (mostly you) decided not to do
so.

> There simply isn't "any consistency with other platforms" to point to
> here, if we disregard stuff from the antique hardware society.

OtherBSD will no doubt do it differently so we will have an even bigger
mess than now.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message