From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 00:19:35 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id AAA10259
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 00:19:35 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA10248
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 00:19:30 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA28515; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:10:47 +1000
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:10:47 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199509050710.RAA28515@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: gryphon@healer.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org, peter@taronga.com
Subject: Re: disklabel and file system differences between 1.1 and 2.0.5...
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>I have both sliced and non-sliced disks mounted on my 2.0.5 system and
>have had no problems.

>> What are the differences, and which way should I go?

See old FreeBSD-current mail.

>That's a good question. Anyone, aside from interoperability with other
>OS's, is there any real advantage gained by slices?

1. Interoperability with the same OS.
2. More partitions.  Labels by default limit the number of partitions to
   about 8 and there is a fundamental limit imposed by the label having
   to fit in a single sector.  The slice driver by default limits the
   nomber of partitions to 240 (8 on each of 30 slices) and the disk
   data structure allows about half as many slices as there are sectors
   on the disk (up to a limit of 4G sectors).

Bruce