Subject: Re: Dynamic SCSI ids (was: A possible way of handling...)
To: Michael Graff <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 05/12/1997 14:21:07
firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Studenmund) writes:
>> Another possability of this scheme is to permit having 4 (maybe 3?)
>> partitions per device. If your system uses lots of ccd's, you can then
>> have twice as many hd's hooked up at once. If ccd's can be partitioned,
>> you get the best of both worlds.
>How about on the i386 we add the concept of slices? It sure would be
>nice to have a FreeBSD partition, BSDI, and NetBSD all on the same
>disk, and be able to share home and source directories.
I think that would be a great idea. I have a couple of i386 machines
with NetBSD and Linux partitions. Slices would be a much nicer way to
manage such systems. As it is, mapping the non-BSD BIOS partitions is
burning burning too many of the per-drive partitions allowed by the
>Using a slice is, on the i386, a BIOS partition, which is then divided
>into the standard ones.
>/dev/wd0a would reference the first (and probably only) NetBSD partition
>by default in that case.
>From what I know of FreeBSD and Solaris/x86 use of slices, that
doesn't sound like the right mapping. Slices should be partitionable
with a BSD-style disklabel at the start of each *BSD partition. We
should also be able to access `foreign' slices, or partitions of
Sounds to me like we're going to want 32 (BSD) partitions per i386
HDA, allowing up to 8 partitions per slice. Or possibly more.
This would also let us kill the `d=whole drive, c=bsd parition' misfeature.
Maybe NetBSD could just copy whatever FreeBSD does here. That would
be a big overall consistency win for those (like Darren Reed) who use both.