On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 08:25:24 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wrote: > It's "dangerous" because that partitioning format is rare outside of > BSD-based systems. Disk utilities may not recognize it, and could > damage it.
I think this is a good characterization of the term currently used. In historical context this layout would deserve the name "traditional", as non-PC BSD installations did not _require_ a MBR "enclosing" to be present - this is a concept introduced by the PC world. Most PCs still work with "dedicated" perfectly well if desired (even though there is no real reason to use that layout approach). I try to avoid the part "dangerously" because the danger is only significant in non-BSD land, like some obscure systems that could try to "repair" something and cause data loss, which is well known and feared... :-) > Most of the rest of the world used MBR partitioning, which allowed up to > four MBR partitions (called "slices" by FreeBSD) per disk. Those are, precisely called "DOS primary partitions" (in difference to "DOS extended partitions" which somehow behave like slices in BSD terminology). :-) > Yes, one partition format inside another. It only seems complicated > because it is. Which makes it useful and flexible. :-) > With GPT, there is no reason to use BSD disklabels at all. And most modern computers do not have any problem booting it. The old MBR approach (as well as dedicated) will probably only be needed in niche applications and exceptions. You can have all the advantages of "being easy stuff" known from dedicated layout by using the GPT tools, plus you gain "more compatibility" if this matters. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"