From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Sun Jul 8 09:02:31 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 6FB6C102AF0C for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:02:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB638A8ED for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:02:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fc5aO-00084s-Rm; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 11:02:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, "Manish Jain" Subject: Re: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 11:02:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (FreeBSD) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: 0.5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_60 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 X-Scan-Signature: 4cc6a862e0a753e674eb374334b394fd X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 09:02:31 -0000 On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 07:59:55 +0200, Manish Jain 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 Interesting. I don't why this is. Regards, Ronald.