Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Leo Weppelman <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/21/1999 20:03:57
In some email I received from Leo Weppelman, sie wrote:
> > I'd vote for X Y Z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai "" for partiton 49 -> 63.
> My suggestion for the raw-device would be partition zero. Otherwise, what
> are you planning to do when we bump to, say, 128 partitions? Move it again?
Why 0 ? At present it's c or d, is it not ?
Also, why does the disk label structure need to change ? To be frank, having
to edit the disk label so you can mount DOS partitions is fucked. If wedges
get around this then wedges should be used. The current device name space
used for disks (<disk-type><number><partition>) is too small. For PC's, at
least, you should be able to unambiguously refer to each fdisk partition
separately. Either one of two solutions is required: (1) the FreeBSD
approach of <disk-type><number><fdisk-partition-reference><partition>,
i.e. wd0a becomes wd0s3a or (2) the Solaris approach, which includes the
`full address' of the disk (c0d0p0 for the partition, c0d0s0 for the UFS
bit). All that then remains is being able to `wire down' the reference
to where the disk and controller are so you can support the old naming
convention of 'sd0a' as well as adding/removing hard drives above and below
the SCSI id of the root disk, without disrupting fstab.