Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:23:32 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: g_part partition tool -- some logistic questions Message-ID: <5BB89CF0-69CE-4A93-828B-298A13CD0F67@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <6781.1171062301@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <6781.1171062301@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > If you have bsd(mirror(ad0,ad1)), then the BSD parts should > be more desirable than the mirror or the disks. > > If on the other hand you have mirror(bsd(ad0),bsd(ad1)), then > the mirror should be more desirable than the bsd's and the disks. Actually, when you have mirror(bsd(ad0),bsd(ad1)) then ad0 and ad1 are the ones I want. But if you have bsd(mirror(ad0,ad1)), then I want the mirror. The reason is that bsd is a partitioning scheme and since I'm writing a partitioning tool, I'm working on the geom that's being partitioned. In an ideal world all partitioning schemes are handled by g_part, which means I can look for the g_part class and have them all, but for now I need to hardcode the numerous classes. I think when there's no partitioning class involved, then the highest ranking geom that has a provider may give me what I want. I think it would exclude "users" like VFS and DEV. Thanks, -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5BB89CF0-69CE-4A93-828B-298A13CD0F67>