Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: Curt Sampson <email@example.com>
From: John Nemeth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/18/1998 01:26:48
On Oct 11, 12:14am, Curt Sampson wrote:
} On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, John Nemeth wrote:
} > It could be defopt'ed.
} What, do you have to build a new kernel every time you want to read
} another disk?
No, only if and when you want to have support for an optional
partition table type. Just like you may have to build a kernel to get
support for MSDOSFS, ADOSFS, FILECOREFS, or whatever happens to be in
} > Or, we can come up with some kind of
} > userland method.
} That is exactly what I'm pointing out our system does now. You can
} have a userland program which reads the raw partition, figures out
} where the non-BSD partition you want is and stuffs that information
} into a BSD partition, which is then used by the alternate file system.
There are two problems with this. The first is a lack of BSD
partitions; although, there are various solutions to this problem
floating around. The second is that you have to maintain the same
information in multiple places.
} > I don't like this idea, because it means keeping the same
} > information in multiple places. This information must be manually
} > kept in sync.
} Yes. How often do you change your partition tables?
The less often you do something, the more likely you are to
}-- End of excerpt from Curt Sampson