[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: boot disk has two MBR partitions
Hi Safi and Eric
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Eric Schnoebelen <eric%cirr.com@localhost>
> "=?utf-8?Q?Saifi=20Khan?=" writes:
> - Now, i have a boot disk (NetBSD terminology) of 320 GB (SATA II).
> - Booted my laptop with 'boot.iso' (NetBSD-current) and using the
> - 'NetBSD' fdisk utility, i created two MBR partitions (NetBSD
> - terminology) of the following size:
> - partition no 1: 20 GB (base system, src)
> - partition no 2: 300 GB (pkgsrc, other sources, mails etc.)
> - i intend to setup 'ffs' on both the MBR partitions.
> - in the linux world, the disk would typically be '/dev/sda' and the
> - two profound partitions would be
> - /dev/sda1
> - /dev/sda2
> - in the NetBSD scheme of things, the first disk is seen as 'wd0'.
> - In that case, how would the two 'MBR partitions' be addressed as?
> NetBSD doesn't use MBR partitions to define individual
> filesystems. In NetBSD (and nearly every other UNIX-like
> operating system on the x86 besides Linux) uses one MBR
> partition to contain all of its filesystems.
> So, for the above partitioning scheme, you want a single NetBSD
> partion of 320Gb, and then two BSD partitions (or slices)
> defined using disklabel(8). More than likely they will be wd0a and
> wd0e once you've completed labeling.
My tiny comment: What about swap? (!)
In my opinion swap should be at least to times the size of your memory..
Of course, swap could be a memory-disk.
Secondly I see no eason to divide a disk between a root partition and a
partition for the rest. In the "good old days (when things were bad)" we had
disk of some 60-80 MB. and whenever something grew too big, we
had to re-arrange data via save/restore. I have spent many a night with
Personally, I use _one_big_parrtition_ for everything today. The utility save
is used for sfety copies. Restore only to find historical texts et c.
> - 3. does fsck like utility perform better when one has slice with
> - BSD partitions rather than straight DOS like partition ?
> I'm not following what is being asked here
I do not either. Please re-formulate your question.
Main Index |
Thread Index |