On Mon, 06 Dec 2004, Greywolf wrote:
> isn't there a cure for myopia?  Greg, you haven't given a very compelling
> argument AGAINST overlapping disklabels.  Fine, I'll go use something else

Can you give an example (other than the transitory, 'note' case, which
Nathan addressed) where you are not at risk of data loss by having two
partitions defined at the same time, which overlap (other than 100%
overlap)?

The risk of data loss seems like the only argument needed, when I weigh
it against the lack of purpose (I haven't seen an explanation of why
someone would want these) for wanting overlapping partitions defined.

I guess the only example I can think of is to have a scratch partition
that you can newfs to various FS types, as needed. You unmount the other
partition, and newfs the partition appropriate to the FS-type you need,
then mount it. That seems like an awkward way of avoiding updating a
disklabel though.

> You'd say a soldering iron that was plugged in was an accident waiting
> to happen, by that same reasoning.  The difference here is that the

Interesting analogy. Most 'hot' appliances include auto-shut-off
features these days, to prevent fires.

In any case, I less mind burning a finger than I mind losing a partition
full of data.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Although some of you out
there might find a microwave oven controlled by a Unix system an attractive
idea, controlling a microwave oven is easily accomplished with the smallest
of microcontrollers. - Russ Hersch - (Microcontroller primer and FAQ)