Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:56:23 -0700 From: UCTC Sysadmin <support@transbay.net> To: Rob Winters <rob@annapurna.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new IBM Thinkpads rejecting FreeBSD Message-ID: <39EF5FF7.BF89947D@transbay.net> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001018145632.00ac76f8@mail.fiderus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rob Winters wrote: > Someone else wrote: > > > The rep at IBM Tech Support claims that IBM is aware of this problem. He > > > claimed that FreeBSD was "writing the boot sector somewhere above the usual > > > boot sector location". His explanation doesn't make sense, and he was > > unable > > > to provide me with any specifics... > Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se> wrote: > I just killed a ThinkPad A20p by installing 4.1-RELEASE. Apparently IBM allows > for boot sector programs of a certain size, i.e. "LILO-sized". After that, the > BIOS stores power management information ON THE BOOT SECTOR. If the BIOS finds > unpalatable information in that location (presumably whatever FreeBSD puts > there), > then it gets very confused: I recovered a system recently on which the 'booteasy' boot sector had gotten clobbered. Rewriting the boot0 file, I noticed it is 1024 and not 512 bytes - the 2nd sector on the disk is used as well as the 1st. That explains both the above remarks. I'd guess LILO's boot block is one sector long. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39EF5FF7.BF89947D>