Experiences with Gpart

[Vadim Goncharov]

Hi Marcel Moolenaar! 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:40:53 -0700; Marcel Moolenaar wrote about 'Re: Experiences with Gpart':

>>>>> Despite the intent of gpt's being to make such nesting  
>>>>> unnecessary, as
>>>>> a means of defining the structure of gmirrors, which take up the
>>>>> entire extent of whatever encloses them, the nesting was very  
>>>>> helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe nesting simply works if you comment the first if in
>>>> g_part_gpt_probe() in
>>>> sys/geom/part/g_part_gpt.c ? I don't get why this is restricted,  
>>>> should be
>>>> my
>>>> decision to nest or not imo.
>>>
>>> Nesting is not allowed as per the GPT specification.
>>
>> OK. It doesn't make much sense for slices too, but is still allowed.
> A nested MBR provides for backward compatibility by
> presenting a GPT partition as a drive to those legacy
> OSes or tools. I don't think it was needed, but it
> was envisioned that way, AFAICT. It makes sense in a
> weird way.

But, allowing for configuring partitioning as user wants (and complex nesting,
if one wish) was always strong benefit of the GEOM. So why not? It is allowed
author of this thread to manage mirrors the way he wants, not the way somebody
enforces. Unix is tools, not policy (c)

-- 
WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181       mailto:vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
[Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]