Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:34:13 -0600 (CST) From: FreeBSD Stable <fbsdstable@cobble.capnet.state.tx.us> To: David Burren <david@burren.cx> Cc: <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Setting drive geometry, big drives? Message-ID: <20020131222442.I96906-100000@cobble.capnet.state.tx.us> In-Reply-To: <6274.1012521900@burren.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, David Burren wrote: > > So the partition editor picks another default, which is > > 7476/255/63. Which seems to work fine, but now I have three > > different numbers. The boot still shows 119150/16/63, the BIOS > > still shows 29437/16/255, and the disklabel shows 7476/255/63. > > Questions: Why the warning about not using the PHYSICAL GEOMETRY, > > especially since the BIOS reports an apparently-proper physical > > geometry, and I'm told I must use the BIOS settings for the > > drive's geometry? And why is the boot message still reporting > > 119150/16/63, when that isn't set anywhere??? > Surely the driver will be probing the device directly to find the > 119150/16/63 geometry. Have you tried setting the BIOS to use the > same geometry and see where that gets you? The partition editor insists that 119150/16/63 is not a proper geometry for the drive, so there isn't much point to setting it that way in the BIOS, but I can't, anyway. The BIOS (both on a 1rst MB and a Tyan K7) cannot be set to a six-digit number for the cylinders. So, why does the partition editor think the 119150/16/63 numbers would be a bad selection??? It is what it is getting when it asks the drive, apparently. Why should I _not_ use the numbers in the probe, and why not use the BIOS reported numbers? stu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020131222442.I96906-100000>