From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Jul 7 23:54:15 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F051103CB97 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 23:54:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.kundenserver.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE35172F6E for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 23:54:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r56.edvax.de ([92.195.57.160]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue005 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0M7Wjr-1fzNef2k0l-00xKau; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 01:48:58 +0200 Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:48:58 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Manish Jain Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Fwd: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-Id: <20180708014858.cccaf338.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <20180707231908.65a2e973.freebsd@edvax.de> <20180708001336.4097d20e.freebsd@edvax.de> <6bbfdaad-6872-1a6b-f176-471e57ac8d0a@yandex.com> <20180708004645.5a39c930.freebsd@edvax.de> <939bdcac-d9c3-2863-0e83-e1e87b61ded8@yandex.com> <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:u+QrZPYNLtPK7M8dvy8IWY641yCJVyjkOR4q7/n99pVW02ZFCU1 4+OZ2+SnXAQ2/WE2AncAsrn4dVKxjC5NcQibXTeloRAIIkiS+fJmoN/D3F+hq9kz/IUSRXR +C5MS9Qj+xCAAi5KwfxSbafdW7yfkPo2j3ArEpwNxCeuz8WLXZmJakDlGUnQIBVwloP5WfA XcqPDZfWBn+LJ+ngR0HUA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:aNrj+boSYBA=:808qR75/RTDnCvA+0UDSOd LUvNOQm4f+DYqh1SlltQfDPCw41LiZjzIvdQuEDbgzjnCMNQSdaocm4ikajfxz71pIGtwPNfr S+GTX9pqhhE8LVGGinVASMGI9+hL1v6tryInZNf5eL0Ao5g99WAT51UB57MxwtaN/kE6aD4ok sxddegKZoSfiYpG3jazLJ+Ra/es/pXOJHxXfqh3p20Lj4SYz43E1oSkMJP8Zaz1d5lDo2DySa +QLY/E+OYDfqUxTE95gi4k6AHXt4GQH31SO9RV/kadPU7Qd8pUnqxWdCq1VfUsLzvcQ2oRjZl VmpVwRECqC6AWgITmUR37woHejwmyFvMcmK0QWQCu3059g3gULPsQ0VjzrWKgAlpoW4OhuFCi HLEH70Ig1+2VE8cHuOAqKoICxuzXhF7AxIGeUKSMpBPlFfXCnvsEVXSltQdU/fXk/ntJcZzAh SwI1RW8+unG9dNkMibJSSp5cK+xEODtiaYUdjQ5RrZm8BWP4dZg7BciLqk3wnjYJZ4qssad3R pdN3RU6keAXsAN4qPdH+RrzhTW9/ovKJGfdWLoUTeIy8nV2OJsGxv3UJIDMOD6+U+DBQOQVFZ RdLMBaq8ceOzZ6DB8jEiv23YmUmH5JsbMLYf8gM9KymGFcpy/X+gdNveorA2UZmYWIPEBoovZ Pu8CUgZoDpr5iRnyMWPdRukQ083FMgmAjRX+/35pi9Xy7Z6d919a3POBFaZBu234WXIoGSkSa ST4SUGyPN9MR3uof X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 23:54:15 -0000 On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530, Manish Jain wrote: > On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote: > > They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore. > > All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR. This is not possible due to the design of MBR. It's some kind of "lowest common denominator" in the PC world. The BSDs have agreed on "sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD)" and the use of partitions inside a slice. It's not that FreeBSD couldn't do without that. It can, but other systems on the same disk probably can't. > We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets > recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is > freebsd::freebsd-ufs. The partition type freebsd-ufs is designed for GPT, not for MBR. You'd basically have to find a sysid (MBR partition type) or create a new one that FreeBSD understands as an 'a' labeled BSD partition and agrees to boot from it. But still there is the crazy construct of 4 "DOS primary partitions", and if you need more, you have to remove one to create a "DOS extended partition" and logical volumes within it. The numbering is inconvenient, too. That's why GPT exists. So why not use that, instead of trying to accomodate outdated MBR to perform a task it is not designed to do? > If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for > eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). As I said, GPT helps with that. > Any > extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in the BSD. That looks too complicated. Always remember that MBR and the slices come from DOS, an era that's over. For multi-booting, Grub can be used. It worked on MBR, and it works on GPT. > Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the user > in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the past > (when there presumably was no EBR nest). GPT solved that problem years ago. Unsolved problems, however, contain multi-booting and the trouble with "Windows" in this context, but that's nothing FreeBSD should primarily care about. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...