Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:07:36 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Subject: Re: usb/da vs sata geometry calculations (was Re: Switchover to CAM ATA?) Message-ID: <4BD59018.40805@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100425080125.GA12283@duncan.reilly.home> References: <4BD06BD9.6030401@FreeBSD.org> <20100424193034.GA9853@alchemy.franken.de> <20100425080125.GA12283@duncan.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Reilly wrote: > Was this the result of the umass/da driver having a different > synthetic geometry calculation routine than the SATA driver? ATA and SCSI disk drivers indeed have different geometry calculation algorithms. ATA fetches geometry from DEVICE IDENTIFY data, while SCSI seems just fakes them in many cases. > This was all on an 8-STABLE system about 400 days old, fwiw. > > Should I expect any on-going badness as a result of this > difference in "geometry" between two identical drives? I hope not. LBA-aware loaders should use LBA offsets of the partitions, which are not depending on geometry. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BD59018.40805>