Looking for rationale of fs naming conventions
Warren Toomey
wkt at henry.cs.adfa.oz.au
Fri Sep 4 11:19:01 AEST 1998
> Thanks Eric.... that sort of discussion makes my day, and feeds my
> woefully short history folder, nicely! Does anything in print cover
> this sort of thing in one place?
>
> Bob Keys
As with much of early Unix, you have to Use the Source, Luke. Small disks
like the RK05s and RL02 were not typically partitioned, except to put a
swap space at one end. However, bigger disks like the RP04s were. In V6
and V7, this was done by the device driver, and the device minor number
represented the particular partition, e.g from v6 hp.c
struct {
char *nblocks;
int cyloff;
} hp_sizes[] {
9614, 0, /* cyl 0 thru 23 */
/* cyl 24 thru 43 available */
-1, 44, /* cyl 44 thru 200 */
-1, 201, /* cyl 201 thru 357 */
20900, 358, /* cyl 358 thru 407 */
/* cyl 408 thru 410 blank */
40600, 0,
40600, 100,
40600, 200,
40600, 300,
};
. . .
hpstrategy(abp)
struct buf *abp;
{
register struct buf *bp;
register char *p1, *p2;
bp = abp;
p1 = &hp_sizes[bp->b_dev.d_minor&07];
Here, each of the 8 minor device numbers selected a different set of
cylinders on the disk, and note also that some of the sets overlapped.
The V6 manual on hp(4) says:
Since the disk is so large, this allows it to be broken
up into more manageable pieces. The origin and size of the
pseudo-disks on each drive are as follows:
disk start length
0 0 9614
1 18392 65535
2 48018 65535
3 149644 20900
4 0 40600
5 41800 40600
6 83600 40600
7 125400 40600
It is unwise for all of these files to be present in one
installation, since there is overlap in addresses and
protection becomes a sticky matter.
Early versions of BSD followed this compile-time partition selection.
I'm note sure when disklabels appeared, perhaps in 4.2BSD. Kirk or
Steven might be able to tell us.
Warren
Received: (from major at localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19059
for pups-liszt; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 04:16:01 +1000 (EST)
More information about the TUHS
mailing list