Disk Slices - which slice to mount ?

[stevenriz]

I created a new LUN of about 75gb. I let format slice it for me automatically and here is the result. My question is would I do a newfs on slice 2 or slice 6? I am thinking slice 6 because slice 2 includes some swap info and if I was to overwrite things there, I could be in trouble. Thoughts and suggestions??
Thanks! (sorry it formatted badly here. Maybe copy and paste into notepad.)

Total disk cylinders available: 38685 + 2 (reserved cylinders)

Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144
1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144
2 backup wu 0 - 38684 75.56GB (38685/0/0) 158453760
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 usr wm 128 - 38684 75.31GB (38557/0/0) 157929472
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0

partition>

 

[grega]

Do the newfs on slice 6. Slice 2 is a "pseudo" partition which refers to the whole disk.

Greg.

 

[stevenriz]

Makes sense. Now, if there was just a pseudo partition and nothing else, could I put a new fs on that slice?

 

[grega]

You probably could, but it's considered bad practice

Sun says ... Solaris uses slice 2 as a special slice/partition that represents the whole disk. We strongly recommend that you not place filesystems on slice 2 and that you leave the configuration for slice 2 at the default values.

Greg.

 

[stevenriz]

So if I was to do a free hog type of thing then slice 2 actually equals slice 6 and no other slices have values in them. Then one would create a newfs on slice 6. I am not talking a root disk here, just an additional disk. The root disk has tons of swap so I am not worried about that. Basically would that situation be "legal" ?

 

[mikeclark]

No problems with that approach.