From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep  2 20:02:48 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C3D16A419;
	Sun,  2 Sep 2007 20:02:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru)
Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3833913C45D;
	Sun,  2 Sep 2007 20:02:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by woozle.rinet.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l82JeCHl001132;
	Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:40:12 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:40:12 +0400 (MSD)
From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <fbd5e6$aia$1@sea.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <20070902233930.O1113@woozle.rinet.ru>
References: <20070901074803.GM85633@comp.chem.msu.su>
	<fbd5e6$aia$1@sea.gmane.org>
X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet
X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 6B691B03
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0
	(woozle.rinet.ru [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:40:12 +0400 (MSD)
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New option for newfs(3) to make life with GEOM easier
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:02:48 -0000

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ivan Voras wrote:

IV> Why not go a bit further and reserve 1 sector by default? I mean: keep
IV> the option, but if the GEOM people agree that only the last sector is in
IV> question here (and I think all current GEOM classes behave this way),
IV> reserve the 1 sector by default. Nobody will notice but some foot
IV> shooting will be avoided.
IV> 
IV> The reason for this is that in some cases people will change their mind
IV> about whether they want to do mirroring or not, and then it's too late.

There are possibilities that you can decide to use more than one GEOM layers 
under your file system.

Sincerely,
D.Marck                                     [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
[ FreeBSD committer:				     marck@FreeBSD.org ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------