On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Olaf Seibert wrote:

> On Mon 03 Jun 2002 at 12:49:34 -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > I don't think that's the best direction to go. I think it would be better
> > to do everything in terms of underlying disk blocks. Mainly since physical
> > block size is a property of the drive, so if you take a drive to another
> > machine, it will work. If we depend on DEV_BSIZE (and I'm understanding
> > you right), then different kernels will look in different places.
>
> On the other hand, it would be a nice property if a disk image taken
> from one disk would always work on another, even if the underlying
> block size is different.

I think the best way to handle this is to run a vnd on top of the other
image.

Take care,

Bill