On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:10:10AM -0800, Uwe Dippel wrote: > > thanks. All my servers run OpenBSD, so I know the difference between > a DOS-partition and a slice. :)
My background is Solaris SPARC, where things are simpler. Solaris writes a label to a physical disk to define slices (Solaris partitions) on the disk. The `format' command sees the physical disk. In the case of Solaris x86, this command sees one fdisk partition, which it treats as a disk. I generally create a single fdisk partition that occupies the entire disk, to return to simplicity. > My confusion is about the labels. I could not label it what I > wanted, like zfsed or pool, it had to be root. And since we can have > only a single bf-partition per drive (dsk), I was thinking ZFS would > take the (existing but unlabeled) s0 to attach to. This does not > seem to be the case. The tag that appears on the partition menu isn't used in normal operation of the system. There are only a few valid choices, but `root' is fine. > Out of curiosity: how does it matter (to ZFS) if /dsk/c3t1d0s0 is a > complete drive or exists in a bf-partition? > > One way or another, /dev/dsk/c2d0s0 seems to be over-defined now. If you give `zpool' a complete disk, by omitting the slice part, it will write its own label to the drive. If you specify it with a slice, it expects that you have already defined that slice. For a root pool, it has to be a slice. -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
