Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 09/21/1999 16:33:24
>>>> [...when we go from 64 to 128...]
>>> I don't forsee us ever moving this number again. I think we should
>>> get it right now, and leave it alone.
>> I tend to agree from our current situation. But I keep remembering
>> the '64KB is enough' phrase ;-)
> True.... ;-)
I too have trouble imagining a need for more than 64 partitions.
I too am very leery of suggesting no such need will arise.
ftp.netbsd.org is getting a 47G disk in a matter of days, if not
already. Terabyte disks are only a matter of time.
But on the other hand, if wedges are done right, this is not an issue;
the old 8-partitions limit would have been plenty if it were possible
to partition recursively. And with wedges, recursive partitioning
borders on trivial.
>>> raw == partition 0 would be fine too.
>> We can also stick with "raw == partition 2" I don't have much
>> trouble with that either.
> Oh I'd vote for the raw partition being at one end or the other of
> the list; either partition 0 or partition 63. With raw == 0, then
> partition a would be minor # 1.
Yeah...but I still don't see any need for a "raw partition" with
wedges. Just access the underlying device directly rather than doing
anything with the wedge partition devices.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B