Subject: Re: MAXPARTITITONS > 8 (was: Re: mbrlabel fixes)
To: Johan Ihren <email@example.com>
From: Reinoud Zandijk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/28/2000 15:39:13
On 27 Dec 2000, Johan Ihren wrote:
> Very nice. However, this brings up the old favourite issue of what to
> do about the limitation of 8 partitions in the i386 label. As an
> example I show the output from the new mbrlabel when run on my 20GB
> partitions and finally NetBSD with as much flexibility partition wise
> as is left.
Hmm... well without breaking naming conventions i guess we could easily go
up to /dev/wd0z or the like ? ... or even wd0zz ... so thats not really
the issue... i guess one has to look at the encoding of the IOCTL to know
how big that field can be at a maximum... would like the 32 or so ... i
know this is also an arbitrary number, but it's a 2^^6 instead of a 2^^4
so wont give that much trouble i guess, but then maybe 2^^8 is favourable.
The only programs that need to be pached is the bootloader i guess... and
maybe the bootblock loader. For all architectures that is though ...
hmm... cant see the complexity of it now but it doest sound that
> a) 8 partitions for disks that before next Christmas will often be
> larger than 100GB is clearly insufficient. Especially since several
> partitions often are lost to various system uses immediately.
Can't really imagine what to put on a 100Gb disc ... but then i thought
that also of my 4.7 Gb and i got once to a point that it was full (!!)