Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:56:50 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz <sab@seanet.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Scott Blachowicz <sab@seanet.com>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MSDOS extended partitions and "slices" Message-ID: <19980902185650.A6944@dniquote.com> In-Reply-To: <199809030146.TAA03143@lariat.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 07:43:37PM -0600 References: <199808021131.FAA12204@lariat.lariat.org> <199808080608.AAA16222@lariat.lariat.org> <199809021901.MAA21131@two.sabami.seaslug.org> <199809022113.PAA00535@lariat.lariat.org> <19980902175652.A11500@emsphone.com> <199809030005.SAA02250@lariat.lariat.org> <19980902172833.A3976@dniquote.com> <199809030043.SAA02590@lariat.lariat.org> <19980902183643.A5424@dniquote.com> <199809030146.TAA03143@lariat.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >But, so does the current scheme (or what am I missing here?). Anything that > >corresponds to a DOS drive gets a slice number. > > Yes, but this is misleading, because a DOS drive isn't always a slice! It's > often a smaller section within a slice. That's why it's called a "logical" > DOS drive. OK...I meant that anything that would get a DOS drive letter (if it were formatted for DOS) gets a slice number. > >I thought the current scheme would always have the 2nd logical DOS drive in > >the extended DOS partition as /dev/wd0s6. Slices 1 thru 4 are defined as > >the primary partition slices, slice 5 is the first logical, slice 6 is the > >second logical, etc... > > Not necessarily. What if there's no primary slice 4? (Answer: everything > rolls down a number.) I didn't think it worked that way - I thought the primary partition table (or whatever it's called) always had 4 slots in it. And FreeBSD slices 1-4 were always allocated to those slots. And the 1st logical drive always got slice number 5. > >then you turn slice 2 into an extended partition keeping slice 3 as an > >extended partition, then you have trouble because you can't predict the slice > >numbers that get assigned to the logical drive inside slice 3. > > That's right. This is one of the problems. The names should reflect the > hierarchical structure, and the names of the logical drives should NOT be > affected by what's in the other slices. Does that mean it's possible to have more than one extended partitions? If so, then I agree that the current scheme can lead to the slice number uncertainty you describe. If you can only have one extended partition, then I think everything is predictable. -- Scott Blachowicz sab@seanet.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980902185650.A6944>