From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 07:11:37 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1B316A41F; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:11:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from mail26.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail26.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.133.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9862743D45; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:11:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c220-239-19-236.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.19.236]) by mail26.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j897BXwq017628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:11:34 +1000 Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j897BWCv009168; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:11:32 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id j897BWBb009167; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:11:32 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:11:32 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: Jung-uk Kim Message-ID: <20050909071132.GA9121@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <200509081418.47794.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509081418.47794.jkim@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bigger boot block size? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:11:37 -0000 On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:18:44PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote: >I have been working on boot2 recently. I faced constant problem with >boot2 size limitation. Can we have bigger boot block size (aka >BBSIZE)? In the future, we may have to support different file system >to boot from and we won't have any space to add the support without >dropping UFS1 support. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all boot2. boot2 has to be installed onto a specific filesystem so there's no reason why we can't have different boot2 binaries for CD9660, UFS1, UFS2 etc. -- Peter Jeremy