Subject: Re: Questions about 1.3
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: current-users
Date: 10/05/1997 07:57:17
> I think it can safely be said that there are reasons why somebody
> might want more than eight partitions on a disk,

(Seven, really, because the raw partition bypasses the partition

> although it can also be argued that such a person really ought to buy
> two smaller spindles rather than one big spindle - it's definitely
> faster.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument says I should have a
separate spindle for each filesystem, with partitioning being
completely unnecessary.  Even if I were willing to do this (the disks
would cost way more this way), on a system where I need more than 7
partitions per pack, this would run me out of SCSI targets.  (Not all
machines are capable of having a wide controller - or even a second
narrow controller - added to them.)

> But none of these things sounds reasonable in the context of a code
> freeze that's three weeks away.  This is a change that should be made
> and given a _lot_ of time to settle out, not just three weeks.

Heh.  I agree that this should not be in 1.3, though I'm not convinced
it needs all that much settling out; the only downsides to it I've
found are (1) it halves the number of available packs and (2) handling
the interval during which the kernel disagrees with /dev is nontrivial.
Since at least one port _already_ has MAXPARTITIONS>8 (Amiga, IIRC),
anything MI should already have been shaken out.  (So why do I think it
doesn't belong in 1.3?  Largely because of the upgrade hell, item (2)
above.  I believe this is fixable, but not before 1.3 - I dealt with
that interval by hand, something I do not want to ask any significant
fraction of our user base to do.)

					der Mouse

		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B