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,

Bill