From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 11:50:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9391065677 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gcubfg-freebsd-geom@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E03F8FC1D for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gcubfg-freebsd-geom@m.gmane.org) Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KzVHP-0002nR-4H for freebsd-geom@freebsd.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:03 +0000 Received: from 195.208.174.178 ([195.208.174.178]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:03 +0000 Received: from vadim_nuclight by 195.208.174.178 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:03 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org From: Vadim Goncharov Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:45:54 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Nuclear Lightning @ Tomsk, TPU AVTF Hostel Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <9e77bdb50810011331y7216eac3yf85907f96f5e8370@mail.gmail.com> <7353F23F-F944-47C9-A97D-6DE247F958AE@mac.com> <0A1A5002-A643-4738-B775-5E450C02486A@mac.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.208.174.178 X-Comment-To: Marcel Moolenaar User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) Sender: news Subject: Re: Experiences with Gpart X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:04 -0000 Hi Marcel Moolenaar! On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:39:43 -0800; Marcel Moolenaar wrote about 'Re: Experiences with Gpart': >>>>>>> Despite the intent of gpt's being to make such nesting >>>>>>> unnecessary, as >>>>>>> a means of defining the structure of gmirrors, which take up the >>>>>>> entire extent of whatever encloses them, the nesting was very >>>>>>> helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe nesting simply works if you comment the first if in >>>>>> g_part_gpt_probe() in >>>>>> sys/geom/part/g_part_gpt.c ? I don't get why this is restricted, >>>>>> should be >>>>>> my >>>>>> decision to nest or not imo. >>>>> >>>>> Nesting is not allowed as per the GPT specification. >>>> >>>> OK. It doesn't make much sense for slices too, but is still allowed. >>> A nested MBR provides for backward compatibility by >>> presenting a GPT partition as a drive to those legacy >>> OSes or tools. I don't think it was needed, but it >>> was envisioned that way, AFAICT. It makes sense in a >>> weird way. >> >> But, allowing for configuring partitioning as user wants (and >> complex nesting, >> if one wish) was always strong benefit of the GEOM. So why not? It >> is allowed >> author of this thread to manage mirrors the way he wants, not the >> way somebody >> enforces. Unix is tools, not policy (c) > > Gratuitous non-compliance in the name of freedom is > not the Unix-way of things. Unix always had at least knob allow_me_to_shoot_in_the_foot, if now allowed this directly. So what alternative do you propose to group partitions together or to split GPT partitions? bsdlabel? But that is limited to 26 partitions and 2^32 sectors. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]