Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 17:30:28 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, terry@cs.weber.edu Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, phk@ref.tfs.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: newfs: sectors per cylinder (4096) disagrees with disk label (36) Message-ID: <199503180730.RAA11965@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 2^24 is plenty of devices! Naming them right is harder. I once >> had MAKEDEV generating about 700 disk devices but have reduced that >> to about 200 (27 per unit) by only generating partitions for the >> first BSD partition. This required naming the first BSD partition >> canonically. I don't really like this - it's like renumbering >> SCSI devices. >OK, I guess I was getting ahead of myself by assuming a linearly >expanding Nd matrix with direct bit assignments. Slices _are_ numbered orthogonally, except slice 0 is an alias for the first BSD slice (s1..s30) and slice 1 partition c is an alias for the whole disk. Slice names may be locked into fstab by not using the aliases (except there is no canonical way of numbering extended DOSpartitions). >I'd steal fully half of the available bits for single instance >devices like "the controller" and "the whole drive". Maybe I should have done that. The special slices 0 and 1 are messy to support. >I think your device creation problems get solved by cloning and use >of a devfs exposed as a /dev in the file system name space. Yes, I hope we have devfs before the current scheme runs out of bits. >/dev/scsi/controller/target[/lun][/DOS_PARTITION][/BSD_SLICE] I find even rsd0s2a to hard to type compared with rsd0a :-). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503180730.RAA11965>