From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Sat Jul 7 06:02:01 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 4BC55103B744 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 06:02:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jude.obscure@yandex.com) Received: from forward102o.mail.yandex.net (forward102o.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::602]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "forwards.mail.yandex.net", Issuer "Yandex CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C949484F4F for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 06:02:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jude.obscure@yandex.com) Received: from mxback14j.mail.yandex.net (mxback14j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1619::90]) by forward102o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id DF9D35A016E9 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 09:01:57 +0300 (MSK) Received: from smtp2p.mail.yandex.net (smtp2p.mail.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:0:1472:2741:0:8b6:7]) by mxback14j.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id oafZAwmqLD-1vm00mdg; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 09:01:57 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1530943317; bh=SCKPyAlZE6cWLIcuaZNhHtlFnqBigo7nyJ0naJ6GmUE=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date; b=KR0AlT7O2UVRxTV70ENcYGl2BDSyE8dRxigkFeb8DD6g7g+qgeb/CkPLbblBdSMB2 lRuJhSaz0yzq6iTN/iPMr2/5lTjDtnRTJ8j2SxyLQyv0E4AEZfrzJxk1JX057sSqEQ XTlULAEMMP1zmnDEqpIhavaIex771lMl4PnDr4cQ= Received: by smtp2p.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id iIOCF5jby1-1ulqP743; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 09:01:56 +0300 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1530943317; bh=SCKPyAlZE6cWLIcuaZNhHtlFnqBigo7nyJ0naJ6GmUE=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date; b=KR0AlT7O2UVRxTV70ENcYGl2BDSyE8dRxigkFeb8DD6g7g+qgeb/CkPLbblBdSMB2 lRuJhSaz0yzq6iTN/iPMr2/5lTjDtnRTJ8j2SxyLQyv0E4AEZfrzJxk1JX057sSqEQ XTlULAEMMP1zmnDEqpIhavaIex771lMl4PnDr4cQ= Authentication-Results: smtp2p.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.com To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Manish Jain Subject: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-ID: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:29:55 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 06:02:01 -0000 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