Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:35:23 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-ID: <20180708013523.3f52a997@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <dbf75cb9-6aa4-a609-97cc-55bd5762e593@yandex.com> References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <f57a5540-9736-53bf-5312-166a1b2e23b0@yandex.com> <20180707231908.65a2e973.freebsd@edvax.de> <a09d56e5-38c7-bc52-dc92-49d5956e152d@yandex.com> <20180708001336.4097d20e.freebsd@edvax.de> <6bbfdaad-6872-1a6b-f176-471e57ac8d0a@yandex.com> <20180708004645.5a39c930.freebsd@edvax.de> <939bdcac-d9c3-2863-0e83-e1e87b61ded8@yandex.com> <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de> <dbf75cb9-6aa4-a609-97cc-55bd5762e593@yandex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530 Manish Jain wrote: > On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote: > > They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore. > > All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR. > > We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets > recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is > freebsd::freebsd-ufs. > > If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for > eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). Any > extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in > the BSD. > > Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the > user in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the > past (when there presumably was no EBR nest). I think it did exist, but BSD avoided the mistake made by Linux in adopting the EBR kludge. If you need multiple OSs instances on a drive, it's self-evidently better to label their partitions hierarchically rather then number them in a flat space.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180708013523.3f52a997>