Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:13:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104201847340.34275@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <4DAF791E.30401@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DAEAE1B.70207@FreeBSD.org> <20110420203754.GM85668@acme.spoerlein.net> <4DAF46F8.9040004@FreeBSD.org> <BCE89DC7-116D-48E1-BD86-DF986062B0CC@samsco.org> <4DAF5FBA.8080304@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104201655550.33877@wonkity.com> <4DAF791E.30401@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/20/2011 16:01, Warren Block wrote: > >> Not sure I understand the question. I have a little article called >> FreeBSD Labeled Filesystems: >> http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/labels.html > > That's a good article, but it highlights what seem to be some deficiencies in > the various implementations. For the most part they seem ufs-centric, > although glabel shows some promise for supporting ext2fs and msdosfs (both of > which are workhorse file systems for me). Multiple filesystems are supported, although the labels appear in different places. See 'man glabel | less -p tunefs'. If your MS-DOS or ext2fs filesystem is natively labeled, the system automatically creates those labels in the appropriate directories in /dev. > In your article you point out another thing that seems sub-optimal to > me, different locations for different types of things which are all > referred to as labels. It seemed spread out to me, too. But it hasn't been a problem, and I've come to think of it as namespaces.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1104201847340.34275>