Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:07:35 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: marck@rinet.ru Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024 Message-ID: <4c4cdfd7.Jb6syVdaC436gUYp%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007251349370.3572@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <4C4BA50B.6050507@langille.org> <4C4BB672.3090109@langille.org> <AANLkTinKEBb5S9REK3nn8GF3U=jRAtYMBBfsC5TB8Xj4@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=RGe7ygDYpF2u3BN4oPYSgyUUijOuLnz2q=XXY@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimpeKJhqtihuOFwU%2BtQZeCVXy0-fbYUsoGgN%2BeF@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007251349370.3572@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> wrote: > ... sector numbers (in CHS address method) > [start] at 1 (which always suprized me ;) This goes back at least as far as soft-sectored 8" diskettes in the CP/M era. IIRC, physical sector 0 of each track contained the C number, possibly the H, and a list of the remaining sectors on the track including the size of each sector -- even within a single track the sectors did not all have to be the same size.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c4cdfd7.Jb6syVdaC436gUYp%perryh>