Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!news1.erols.com!news From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Please explain the diff between wd0a and wd0s2a Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:34:10 -0700 Organization: Erol's Internet Service Lines: 45 Message-ID: <321E9452.474A@www.play-hookey.com> References: <lclee.537.021BF8A6@primenet.com> <3219267D.5F1A@www.play-hookey.com> <4vhstg$dt@anorak.coverform.lan> Reply-To: kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) Brian Somers wrote: > > Ken Bigelow (kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com) wrote: > > : As for the nomenclature, s1, s2, etc refer to the specific slice. Your > : Win95 slice is therefore wd0s1, and your FreeBSD slice is wd0s2. Entries > : without a slice designation refer to the drive as a whole, not a single > : slice (wd0c is the whole darn drive). If you're seeing your / partition > : as wd0a instead of wd0s2a, I would guess that you have done some major > : stomping on that drive. It may now be time for that fdisk treatment I > : mentioned. > > Not as far as I know.... wdx is the whole physical IDE disk x. wdxsy is > the whole of slice (physical partition) y on IDE disk x. wdxsyz is > logical partition z on slice (physical partition) y on IDE disk x. > > However, wdxz is is logical partition z on the *first freebsd* slice > (plysical partition) on IDE disk x. > Well, after some further checking, I find that they're right and I was wrong. I was not able to duplicate the display I got before, which suggested that the absence of a slice indicator overlooked all of the slices. Anyway, while it looks odd, df does indeed report a root partition of wd0a, but /var and /usr partitions of wd0s2e and wd0s2f, respectively. So, I must apologize for misleading the original poster, Larry Lee, of this question (now lost from the thread off of my news server). However, my primary point from my first reply remains valid: Win95 is intolerant of just about everything else, and you can't safely read/write from a mounted ms-dos partition if the cluster size is too big for the logical drive size, which commonly occurs when you use FIPS. There may also be another problem with Win95 because of the extra room they leave for the long filenames. I wonder if FreeBSD 2.2 will have a 'mount_win95' command equivalent to 'mount_msdos' but taking these vagaries into account?? -- Ken Are you interested in | byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com over the Internet? |