2007/7/21, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com>:
> Florian Heigl wrote:
> > 2007/7/21, Mark Weinem <mark.weinem@alumni.uni-due.de>:
> >> Florian Heigl wrote:
> >>
> >> > For the other posters...
> >> > the disk label defines slices, not partitions. those ain't extended
> >> > partitions either.
> >> > this is a different scheme than msdos's, a bit less stupid in it's
> >> design.
> >>
> >> Both, "slices" and "partitions" are used synonymously by the BSDs.
> >
> > I just tried to point out why kpartx can't help accessing the OpenBSD
> > data in wd0a|b
> > Thanks for taking the chance of making that pointless.
> >
> Was he correct that they're used synonymously? If so, then the slices
> are what other operating systems call partitions, and your explanation

if they were the same there'd be no kernel module to support it :)

> was merely confusing. If not, what's the difference?

one can call slices partitions, it's ok as long as it's done in
context, but I wouldn't say it's correct, it just doesn't normally
matter.
but they're still a different thing than dos partitions. they're
called slices on about any unix that uses them, and quite many know
combinations of partitioning schemes.

raw unix style would be
disk | bsd label | slices 1-n
in that context it just doesn't matter what you call them, anyone
knows what you mean.


for sake of compatibilty or more complicated layouts it commonly looks
like this/
disk -> dos partition label -> dos partition 1 -> bsd label -> slices 1-12
and here it's quite confusing if you call both things by the same name.

on linux you'd issue (from memory)some mount -t ufs -o
ufstype=<something>,<number>.

I've had to access partitions with a bsd label & slices inside from
linux on rare occasions, but it's quite an annoying thing to do even
without them embedded inside a dos partition.


Florian


-- 
'Sie brauchen sich um Ihre Zukunft keine Gedanken zu machen'