Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.uio.no!nntp.zit.th-darmstadt.de!fu-berlin.de!irz401!orion.sax.de!uriah.heep!news From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: SCSI help Date: 27 Oct 1996 15:09:47 GMT Organization: Private BSD site, Dresden Lines: 37 Message-ID: <54vtvr$pqf@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <1996Oct26.150550.3068@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <54tiej$372@symiserver2.symantec.com> Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.heep.sax.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.6 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E tedm@agora.rdrop.com wrote: > One thing I would like to ask the developers, is there a difference > between splitting a disk up between multiple slices, or a single > slice? For example, Not much of a difference. These are basically two different approaches for the same thing. One of them is historically grown in the Unix environment, where it's been normal that the operating system owned the entire disk. FreeBSD calls it `partitions', following the Unix tradition. `slices' are the fdisk partitions that grew in the PC environment. > a friend of mine told me that Unixes run better when the filesystem > is spread over a, d, e f, partitions, when the partitions are kept > under 200MB. There should be no notable difference. Your root partition (`a' normally) must reside below what the BIOS believes were 1024 cylinders so the /kernel file is accessible by the BIOS. That's about the only restriction. Quite to the contrary, the ccd driver is doing just the opposite. It's mostly a matter of your needs and your policy whether to create many partitions or crunch everything into a few of them only. Note that these matters are _entirely_ different for people using braindead FAT filesystems. The FAT mechanism simply sucks rocks if the allocation block size (`clusters') get larger due to a large partition size. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)