From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep 27 08:21:43 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id IAA03765
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:21:43 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA03756
          ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:21:35 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA28325; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:16:23 +1000
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:16:23 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199509271516.BAA28325@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net
Subject: Re: Diskslice naming convention?
Cc: bde@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> There is no slice named 0.  Slice _number_ 0 is the compatibility slice.
>> Slice _number_ 1 is the whole disk.  The slices that are _numbered_ 2-31
>> are _named_ 1-30.

>Whoa.  I'm lost now w/regards to the compatability slice.  How exactly
>is the compatability slice named, and how does it fit into the 'slice'
>paradigm?

The compatibility slice isn't named, unless you count xd#c (xd#c is the
whole of the (logical) drive xd#).  It doesn't really fit in with the
slice paradigm.  You use it when you only have one [FreeBSD] slice on
the disk and don't want to think of others.

Bruce