A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR
rwmaillists at googlemail.com
Sun Jul 8 00:35:28 UTC 2018
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530
Manish Jain wrote:
> On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote:
> > They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore.
> All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR.
> We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets
> recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is
> If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for
> eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). Any
> extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in
> the BSD.
> Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the
> user in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the
> past (when there presumably was no EBR nest).
I think it did exist, but BSD avoided the mistake made by Linux in
adopting the EBR kludge.
If you need multiple OSs instances on a drive, it's self-evidently
better to label their partitions hierarchically rather then number
them in a flat space.
More information about the freebsd-questions