From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 25 13:28:30 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA09655 for current-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:28:30 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA09637 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:28:24 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA21694; Thu, 25 May 95 14:20:54 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9505252020.AA21694@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: newfs weirdness... To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Thu, 25 May 95 14:20:54 MDT Cc: gene@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu, blaise.ibp.fr!roberto@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199505251944.FAA06585@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at May 26, 95 05:44:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >To make both the BIOS and the UFS access happy, the geometry needs to > >be fictitious for the BIOS and real for UFS. And the slice drivers > >need to insure track boundries are observed. And because there is > > Slices are DOSpartitions so their boundaries are usually BIOS cylinder > boundaries, which have about a 1 in (average number of sectors per track) > chance of being track boundaries for new IDE drives. Right, you'd have to throw away an average of 50% of a track at the start to make it work, with the UFS making the assumption of having started on a track boundry for the optimization to be happy (or you'd have to o complicate things a bit). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.