Subject: Re: partition bookkeeping
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
> By "recursive partitioning" I mean that any partition can itself be
> 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
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.