Subject: Re: partition bookkeeping
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/29/1999 13:36:20
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, der Mouse wrote:

> (a) I can't see how this will work without recreating all the problems
> of the dense-minor schemes in slightly different dress and (b) it
> limits you to a max of 63 partitions per drive.  (The latter seems like
> infinity now, perhaps, but with drives pushing 100GB, I'm not at all
> sure it'll stay that way.)

I doubt we'll need more than 63 partitions, but I can be wrong. It strikes
me that at some point breaking a device into smaller and smaller
partitions has diminishing returns as you now have more filesystems to
deal with. :-)

> > First off, the only parttiioning scheme right now which supports
> > recursive partitioning that I know of is mbr (which needs it as mbr
> > only supports 4 partitions!).
> Oh.  Okay, I think we're talking about different things.

Ahhh, true.

> By "recursive partitioning" I mean that any partition can itself be
> partitioned.
> That's "any partition".  Not "any MBR partition".

That is something different than I've been talking about. But I've really
got to ask, "Why?" :-)

> The most immediate need for this is dealing with MBRs.  But installing
> a solution that addresses only that need strikes me as extremely
> short-sighted.

Well, my question in reply would be why should we permit the
subpartitioning on a partition when we can support more partitions
overall? i.e. most of the reasons I've seen that folks want to
subpartition are that they didn't have enough partitions to begin with.

Take care,