Re: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c?

2006-04-14 Thread João Salvatti
Thanks folks. On 4/14/06, Tim Donahue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 April 2006 10:56, Joco Salvatti wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > When I run 'disklabel wd0', it returns: > > > > # /dev/rwd0c: > > > > My question is: why /dev/r

Re: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c?

2006-04-14 Thread Tim Donahue
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:56, Joco Salvatti wrote: > Hi all, > > When I run 'disklabel wd0', it returns: > > # /dev/rwd0c: > > My question is: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c? > > Thanks.. > >From `man disklabel`: diskSpecify the disk to

Re: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c?

2006-04-14 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Joco Salvatti wrote: > Hi all, > > When I run 'disklabel wd0', it returns: > > # /dev/rwd0c: > > My question is: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c? Because disklabel opens the raw device, block devices are normally only used to access filesystems. -Otto

why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c?

2006-04-14 Thread João Salvatti
Hi all, When I run 'disklabel wd0', it returns: # /dev/rwd0c: My question is: why /dev/rwd0c instead of /dev/wd0c? Thanks.. -- Joco Salvatti Undergraduating in Computer Science Federal University of Para - UFPA web: http://www.openbsd-pa.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]