Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:04:42 +0100 From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> To: Manish Jain <jude.obscure@yandex.com> Cc: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-ID: <20180708230442.GB47960@in-addr.com> In-Reply-To: <bfe79340-8027-9427-4cc6-a82c166727b1@yandex.com> References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <op.zltsqgb0kndu52@klop.ws> <bfe79340-8027-9427-4cc6-a82c166727b1@yandex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:05:35AM +0530, Manish Jain wrote:
> On 07/08/18 14:32, Ronald Klop wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 07:59:55 +0200, Manish Jain
> > <jude.obscure@yandex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am a longtime user of FreeBSD, which now serves as my only OS.
> >>
> >> There is one request I wished to make for FreeBSD filesystems. While
> >> UFS implementation under GPT is unnested just as Ext2, the MBR
> >> implementation of UFS continues to piggyback on an unnecessary nest
> >> (in a BSD slice).
> >>
> >> Can it not be considered as an alternative to provide a UFS partition
> >> (unnested) under MBR too ?
> >>
> >> Existing users could continue to use the freebsd::freebsd-ufs scheme,
> >> while fresh usage could have the alternative of UFS directly recorded
> >> in the MBR.
> >>
> >> I should perhaps note that unlike most users who have shifted to GPT
> >> of late, I much prefer MBR because 1) the scheme's design by itself
> >> keeps the number of slices/partitions in a disk manageable; and 2) I
> >> can use the boot0 manager, my favourite boot manager.
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading this.
> >> Manish Jain
> >
> > Do you mean something like this? Gpart refuses to create a freebsd-ufs
> > partition in the MBR part.
> >
> > # mdconfig -s 512m
> > md0
> > # gpart create -s MBR md0
> > md0 created
> > # gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -s 256m md0
> > gpart: Invalid argument
> > # gpart add -t freebsd-swap -s 256m md0
> > gpart: Invalid argument
> >
> > But you can create and newfs other types.
> >
> > # gpart add -t linux-data -s 256M md0
> > md0s1 added
> > # newfs /dev/md0s1
> > /dev/md0s1: 256.0MB (524288 sectors) block size 32768, fragment size 4096
> > ????????using 4 cylinder groups of 64.03MB, 2049 blks, 8320 inodes.
> > super-block backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at:
> > ??192, 131328, 262464, 393600
> >
> > # gpart add -t freebsd md0
> > md0s2 added
> > # newfs /dev/md0s2
> > /dev/md0s2: 256.0MB (524272 sectors) block size 32768, fragment size 4096
> > ????????using 4 cylinder groups of 64.00MB, 2048 blks, 8192 inodes.
> > super-block backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at:
> > ??192, 131264, 262336, 393408
>
> Hi all,
>
> I will reply to all the answers (which accumulated as I had a very nice
> long sleep, thank you) to this thread here.
>
> This is what I get currently applying gpart to my USB pen drive:
>
> /root <<: gpart create -s MBR da0
> da0 created
> /root <<: gpart add -t linux-data -s 1G da0
> da0s1 added
> /root <<: gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -s 1G da0
> gpart: Invalid argument # WHY ?
Hi,
As I said in my email, freebsd-ufs is a GPT ID. MBR has a very
restricted set of what is considered valid - from memory it's a single
byte. That means freebsd-swap, freebsd-zfs, freebsd-ufs, etc aren't
valid.
> It currently is a real bother having to create UFS, with a whole lot of
> extra commands:
>
> /root <<: gpart add -t freebsd -s 1G da0
> da0s2 added
> /root <<: gpart create -s BSD da0s2
> da0s2 created
> /root <<: gpart add -t freebsd-ufs da0s2
> da0s2a added
There is nothing forcing you to create the BSD label
# mdconfig -s 512m
md0
# gpart create -s MBR md0
md0 created
# gpart add -t freebsd md0
md0s1 added
# newfs /dev/md0s1
/dev/md0s1: 512.0MB (1048560 sectors) block size 32768, fragment size 4096
using 4 cylinder groups of 128.00MB, 4096 blks, 16384 inodes.
super-block backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at:
192, 262336, 524480, 786624
# mount /dev/md0s1 /mnt
#
> The extra commands mean that when a user wants to quickly put a
> partition on a disk of any kind, it is much easier using Ext2.
>
> If the original command (highlighted with WHY ?) could succeed as such
> (or perhaps with a slight alteration: gpart add -t ufs -s 1G da0), UFS
> becomes as convenient as Ext2 for general purpose usage.
>
> There is another way to think about the situation.
>
> FreeBSD currently caters to only 2 types of users:
>
> 1) Dedicated disk users - use BSD schema
>
> 2) Slice users - use MBR schema + BSD schema
>
> With very little effort, we can make the OS cater to the third kind of
> users : partition users (use MBR + EBR - no BSD). This makes FreeBSD
> behaviour same as what other operating systems do - expect the user to
> use one of the 3 primary partitions for /, and any extra filesystems
> (/usr or /var or swap) optionally needed to be found in the EBR.
I do not understand why you need to create the BSD label. Nothing
in the GEOM framework is forcing you to do that
Is this for a bootable disk or just storage?
Regards,
Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180708230442.GB47960>