On Jan 30, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2011-Jan-30 13:39:22 +0800, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I'm not sure of the way BSD enumerates devices. Some clever person thought >> that hiding the partition or slice would be useful. > > No, there's no hiding. /dev/ada0 always refers to the entire physical disk.
ZFS on Solaris hides the slice when dealing with whole disks using EFI labels. > If it had PC-style fdisk slices, there would be a sN suffix. > If it had GPT partitions, there would be a pN suffix. > If it had BSD partitions, there would be an alpha suffix [a-h]. > >> On a Solaris >> system, ZFS can show a disk something like c0t1d0, but that doesn't exist. > > If we're discussing brokenness in OS device names, I've always thought > that reporting device names that don't exist and not having any way to > access the complete physical disk in Solaris was silly. Having a fake > 's2' meaning the whole disk if there's no label is a bad kludge. The "fake" s2 goes back to BSD where the c partition traditionally meant the whole disk. This was just carried forward and changed to "s2" when numbers were used instead of letters. With EFI on Solaris, this is no longer possible and there is "whole disk partition." On a default Solaris system s0 usually refers to the whole disk less s8. > Mike might like to try "gpart list" - which will display FreeBSD's view > of the physical disks. It might also be worthwhile looking at a hexdump > of the first and last few MB of the "faulty" disks - it's possible that > the controller has decided to just shift things by a few sectors so the > labels aren't where ZFS expects to find them. Yes, sometimes controllers will steal space from the disk for implementing RAID. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
