Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Leo Weppelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 09/20/1999 13:43:44
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
# On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 12:48:53PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
# > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
# > >
# > > * The basis of the generic-label is the current dislabel definition
# > > (as defined in 'include/disklabel.h'). The additions are:
# > > - 52 (2*26 == [a-zA-Z]) partitions (MAX_GENERIC_PARTITIONS)
# > I'd vote for 64 partitions, and shoving the "whole disk" one at #63. For
# > now, ports could keep shoving a "whole disk" partition at #2 or #3 (c or
# > d).
# I started out with the 64 idea myself until I tried to think up the name
# of partitions above 52 ;-) So, do you have a suggestion?
Let's see, since names are for organic lifeform readability only, we
have some choices:
use /dev/$disktype$disknum$delim$partition_index, where
$disktype == sd, wd, hd, xy, whatever;
$disknum should be obvious;
$delim would be one of nothing at all or some compatible
character, probably one of @,%+=-_~.:
$partition_index would be from 0-64, 0-3f
Super-partitioning, i.e. /dev/sd0a.a, with links from
sd0a -> sd0a.a, sd0b -> sd0a.b (or something similar)
Use funky characters, i.e. /dev/sd3[@#%+=-_~,.].
As well, I think that sd0 should point to the 'whole partition' as
a physical entity of its own rather than depending on compiled-in
magic, i.e. it happens at MAKEDEV time.
Are we going to hit the point where it might actually make sense
to reference things like /dev/sd0/a.a or however we name these
How many partitions can we fit into the space of a standard disklabel?
Or are we looking to change the size and format (thus losing compatibility
with older systems)?
This is all stuff to think about; I thought 22 or 24 was more or
less the maximum number of partitions a disklabel could support.
FWIW, if I really needed to do something like this, I'd probably
reference most of the partitions as ccds and label them that way.
Not to mention that I don't see a whole lot of use for many more
than 16 partitions, as far as intent and purpose go, unless you're
planning on hosting many dic^Hskless workstations and want each one
to have its own separate space (which doesn't strike me as extremely
Or did I miss the question completely?
"Just click on the START button and your journey to the Dark Side
will be complete!"