Subject: Re: Why not change disk naming?
To: Nate Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 12/28/2001 17:59:25
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Nate Johnston wrote:
> Iggy Drougge spake thus: (Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 03:42:43PM +0100)
> > Isn't the slice concept an i386-specific thing to work around the
> > limited
> > number of partitions allowed?
> Well, I guess "slice" <= "partition" is an i386 thing. In other
> architectures "slice" == "partition".
> For example, partitions in Solaris are named cXtXdXsX, where
> c = controller
> t = target
> d = disk
> s = slice
> so you can always locate the exact physical slice being referenced.
> This kind of granularity is important if, for example, you have 2 SCSI
> cards (c0 and c1), with an external raid array for each (c0t0 and c1t0),
> each has 12 disks, with three slices each, and you want to directly
> address them. How would we do the equivalent of /dev/disk/c1t0d9s3 in
They would be numbered from sd0 upwards. If you wanted to hardcode
the numbers you would need to modify your kernel config. Not
ideal, but possible.
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --