From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Nov 2 4:47:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from antioche.lip6.fr (antioche.lip6.fr [132.227.74.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0978314DFC for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:47:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr) Received: from antifer.ipv6.lip6.fr (antifer.ipv6.lip6.fr [132.227.72.132]) by antioche.lip6.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01855; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:47:02 +0100 (MET) Received: (bouyer@localhost) by antifer.ipv6.lip6.fr (8.8.8/8.6.4) id NAA18991; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:47:01 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:47:01 +0100 From: Manuel Bouyer To: Kelly Yancey Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Journaling Message-ID: <19991102134701.B18969@antioche.lip6.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6us In-Reply-To: ; from Kelly Yancey on Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 05:54:56PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 05:54:56PM -0400, Kelly Yancey wrote: > Slightly off topic (as if the topic were about journalling anymore in > this thread anyway :) )... > From my perusal of the code, it looks as if the NetBSD change from > 386BSD's partition ID of 165 (which we still use) to 169 is unrelated to > the change to 16 partitions. Actually, I can't find where it is useful at > all; I would have assumed that if they were going to break > backward-compatibility by going to 16 partitions, switching MBR partition > IDs at the same time would be logical. > Does anyone here know the reasoning between switching MBR partition IDs? It's because FreeBSD also uses 165, this makes it hard to install both OSes on the same HD. -- Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr {Net,Free}BSD: 22 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message