Subject: Re: Partitioning should sta
To: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@lagavulin.pdl.cs.cmu.edu>
From: Dan Menchaca <Dan_Menchaca@quickmail.apple.com>
Date: 01/27/1995 16:29:51
RE>>Partitioning should stay the...
>> The PC bios scheme is inferior to the A/UX scheme. Don't complain because
>> you had to live in shackles. What if on NetBSD/386, I want to have /usr
>> /var /a /b /c ... /z. I like smaller partitions on my 4gig drive. By
>> unmounting the ones that are not in use, I help protect the system from my
>This is a straw man. You have deliberately created a situation which
>is in no way meaningful in 'real life', and purport that partitioning
>scheme used by NetBSD/mac68k can address it, while the partitioning
>scheme (used by NetBSD/i386 and some of the other NetBSD ports) which
>i claim is 'better' cannot.
Mac drivers are autoloaded from the SCSI mechanisms themselves into memory.
Also, all mac volumes conform to a paticular formatting scheme, although that
may change with FSM. In the PC world, different SCSI cards have different
formatting schemes which makes it harder on OSes because the OS must be aware
of each drives map.
In additions to all the above problems, different OSes use different master
maps or boot straps. On the Mac, HFS and AUX have the same partitioning map.
OS will recognize DOS, and OS/2 since OS/2 bootstrap is DOS compatable, and
will not recognize other partitions by other vendors. I booting to different
as a user I want this.
>Why is it not meaningful in real life:
> (1) there is absolutely no benefit to putting that many
> partitions on one disk -- it does _NOT_ help disk
> or file system stability.
> (2) putting that many partitions on one disk is actually
> _quite_ detrimental to file system performance.
Many OSes do it and I would like to have to ability to boot onto MacOS HFS or
MacBSD AUX partition.