Luke Scharf wrote: > 1. Calling s2 a slice makes it a subset of the device, not the whole > device. But it's the whole device. > 2. The number s2 is arbitrary. If it were s0, then there would at > least be the beginning of the list. If it were s3, it would be at > the end of a 2-bit list, which could be explained historically. > If it were s7, it would be at the end of the list. But, no, it's > s2. Why? > 3. None of the grey-haired Solaris gurus that I've talked to have > ever been able to explain why. > 4. Can you use s2 when the disk-label is corrupted? If it's the > whole disk, maybe you can. If it's an entry in the disklabel, > maybe you can't. I seem to remember that I can write to s2 in > order to fix a borked label, but that makes no sense, and I don't > believe it. Maybe I'm loosing my mind. But, then again, my point > is that the s2 thing makes me loose my mind. :-)
Slice 2 is historically the "whole disk" slice (since long before Solaris). The extra encapsulation layer on x86 hardware caused by ancient crappy BIOSes is unfortunate. And s2 isn't special in any way except convention. _Any_ slice that starts at sector 0 (and ends far enough away) will behave the same. If your disk label is broken/missing/whatever, you won't _have_ an s2. On x86en, you should probably use p0 for whole-disk operations... -- Carson _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
