From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 22 7: 6:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from kci.kciLink.com (kci.kciLink.com [204.117.82.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6E637C077 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:06:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from khera@kciLink.com) Received: from onceler.kcilink.com (onceler.kciLink.com [204.117.82.2]) by kci.kciLink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BDEE897 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from khera@localhost) by onceler.kcilink.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27763; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:06:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from khera@kci.kcilink.com) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14552.57732.739752.665443@onceler.kcilink.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:06:44 -0500 (EST) To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: "dangerously dedicated" In-Reply-To: <200003212255.PAA26291@harmony.village.org> References: <4.3.2.20000321160347.00ad9b20@207.227.119.2> <38D50DBC.88FA8E4D@glue.umd.edu> <38D3AB72.366D851D@glue.umd.edu> <200003152159.OAA89926@harmony.village.org> <38D03E64.3D17FC34@glue.umd.edu> <200003190433.VAA04863@harmony.village.org> <200003212255.PAA26291@harmony.village.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>>>> "WL" == Warner Losh writes: WL> In message <4.3.2.20000321160347.00ad9b20@207.227.119.2> "Jeffrey J. Mountin" writes: WL> : Are you saying that da0a is (almost) functionally equivalent to WL> da0s3a if : slice 3 is the first FBSD slice. Thought they were WL> for "dangerously : dedicated" partitions. WL> No. That's not correct. While they are used in dangerously (and WL> stupidly) dedicated mode, they can be used at any time. I still have WL> some mount points on my -current machine that refer to sd1c because WL> I've been too lazy to update them. Why is using /dev/da0a stupid? FreeBSD is the only system I've encountered that totally locks up (during a 3.3-RELEASE install from CD) when there is no fdisk disk label. Is that why it is stupid? BSD/OS and Linux (RedHat 6.1) both deal with the lack of an fdisk disk label just fine, and BSD/OS doesn't even require one, letting you use the direct unix partitioning scheme. I much prefer it that way as it just makes sense on a dedicated box, which is what all of mine are. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-301-545-6996 PGP & MIME spoken here http://www.kciLink.com/home/khera/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message