On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:40:12AM -0500, Hagibis Fan wrote: > Why not just use ext2 labels, i think the whole point > of labels is to avoid using device names, i.e., redhat > default installs reference the labels instead > of device names: > > LABEL=/tmp /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 > LABEL=/usr /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 > > is this what the discussion is about? In the above > quote from /etc/fstab the kernel should be able > to find the partitions even if the disks are rearranged > (ex, should still find it even if /dev/hda > reappears as /dev/hde when placed on a separate controller > and so on) > Not really.
I was asking what are the pros and cons of encapsulating a filesystem inside a BSD-disklabel/BSD-slice partitions as compared to encapsulating filesystems inside slices/primary partitions and/or logical partitions, and what needs to be done to enable such. I was asking this since I was under the impression given the fact that manipulation of the partition table of a disk being used necessitates rebooting the machine to update the master boot record, as well as the resulting number of partitions is at the mercy of your architecture and device type, while the use of BSD-slice partitions aren't covered by this limitation. Of course, I could be wrong with my impressions thus I'd like to clarify things, especially with pros/cons of using BSD-disklabels to encapsulate native Linux filesystems. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
