--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:57:47PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Olaf Seibert wrote:
>=20
> > On Mon 03 Jun 2002 at 12:49:34 -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > > I don't think that's the best direction to go. I think it would be be=
tter
> > > to do everything in terms of underlying disk blocks. Mainly since phy=
sical
> > > block size is a property of the drive, so if you take a drive to anot=
her
> > > machine, it will work. If we depend on DEV_BSIZE (and I'm understandi=
ng
> > > you right), then different kernels will look in different places.
> >
> > On the other hand, it would be a nice property if a disk image taken
> > from one disk would always work on another, even if the underlying
> > block size is different.
>=20
> I think the best way to handle this is to run a vnd on top of the other
> image.

I'm confused - aren't ffs (-like) block pointers in terms of the fragment=
=20
size?
	-is

--=20
seal your e-mail: http://www.gnupg.org/

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8/PlRPCRcZ/VMtk4RAkFTAJ4pBXsEtIPqnu7+65n3SaVkXajfTwCeKnV9
NDAHdK6LOAMSFzLQ9HMeJz8=
=JvCa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj--