On 12/31/23 20:22, Warner Losh wrote:
> It means you either use one set of non overlapping partitions or 
> another set. They were setup in clever ways
> 
> It's more like you can use two or three partitions with non overlapping 
> sets that cover the whole disk.

...

> Think more of a limited number of ways to mix and match for greater 
> flexibility w/o editing the tables.
> 
> A silly example: a is first 2/3 of the disk. B is 2nd 2/3, c d and 
> e are 1/3 each.

Okay.

This makes more sense.  Pre-define overlapping partitions but only use 
non-overlapping.  Sort of like tool boxes that come with a bunch of 
supports for dividers, but you can only put so many dividers in the 
pre-defined spots, but contents between the dividers doesn't overlap.

Sort of like how many squares are in this bigger grid of dots that is 
itself a big square.

> But ancient Unix didn’t have nested partitioning schemes like 
> FreeBSD supports...

Understood and appreciated.



-- 
Grant. . . .