Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:08:18 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E4r?= Thoren <t98pth@student.hk-r.se>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: drive layout Message-ID: <20000911.9081800@bartequi.ottodomain.org> In-Reply-To: <14779.50412.25390.255657@guru.mired.org> References: <14779.50412.25390.255657@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[not quite sure whether to send this to -questions or -chat] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 9/10/00, 6:29:16 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote regarding Re:=20 drive layout: > Salvo Bartolotta writes: > > AdNsi is, IIRC, an old (compatibility) scheme. I am not quite sure h= ow > > it works when you have more than one slice on the same disk (e.g. > > ad0s1a, ad0s1e, ad0s1f; ad0s2a, ad0s2e, ad0s2f ...); on the other > > hand, I use the ordinary label(l)ing in my /etc/fstab. > Is that a typo? Do you really mean "adNi"? (i.e. - ad0a, ad1c, etc?). > If so, that was the original BSD naming scheme, and is probably still > used on systems with disks that don't have slices. In particular, it > was used for dangerously dedicated disks on FreeBSD at one > point. Those disks don't have more than one slice. > These days, the name adNx and adNs1x are identical (i.e. - I get the > same file systems for them on either a DD or a sliced disk on > -current). However, I continue using the adNx names for dangerously > dedicated disks. Not only does it make logical sense, it is then > obvious that they *are* DD, so you don't try tweaking the slice table.= > <mike You are quite right, it is a typo. Thanks for pointing it out, and for=20 highlighting the topic. By the way, I wrote about the "compatibility" scheme as I recalled=20 reading other posts to that effect. The term "compatibility" is=20 probably not the best one to appropriately describe the situation.=20 When installing OpenBSD 2.7 on my multiboot multidisk (multisliced)=20 'puter -- YAOS(tm) (Yet Another Operating System) -- I had run into=20 the same scheme, mutatis mutandis: wdNx. N.B. In my workstation, OpenBSD lives in two slices on two different=20 disks; in FreeBSD parlance, the slices are ad1s2 (/, swap /var) and=20 ad2s2 (/usr); but OpenBSD utilizes the wdNx scheme all the same.=20 Things seem to work as expected -- so far. Incidentally, since I chose=20 a local diskIinstallation, I seamlessly accessed even the FreeBSD=20 partitions via that scheme. Best regards, Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000911.9081800>