Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 5 Apr 1995 00:45:57 +1000
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, bob@obiwan.pmr.com
Cc:        freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject:   Re: Proper procedure to partition/label disk now?
Message-ID:  <199504041445.AAA24580@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> For using the whole disk for FreeBSD, just run disklabel.  The man
>> page may actually be complete now that the 'd' partition isn't
>> special.  This assumes that the disk really is clean, without
>> misleading junk in the partition table.

>Ok, I've done that.  When I mount the filesystem (after having
>newfs'd it) I get the following messages:

>Apr  4 08:14:27 luke /kernel: sd2: invalid primary partition table: no magic
>Apr  4 08:14:27 luke /kernel: sd2: raw partition size != slice size
>Apr  4 08:14:27 luke /kernel: sd2: start 0, end 782599, size 782600
>Apr  4 08:14:27 luke /kernel: sd2c: start 0, end 782335, size 782336

These messages are only warnings.  Should they be removed?  The first one
says that there is apparently no partition table.  `disklabel -B' would
write a suitable partition table.  The message should never be printed
for bootable disks.  The last 3 say that you made the raw partition
size smaller than the disk size.  This is a strange thing to do because
the raw partition is supposed to cover the whole disk.  There is no
reason to round it to a cylinder boundary.

>Here is the disklabel for the drive:

># /dev/rsd2c:
>...
>sectors/unit: 782600
>...
>4 partitions:
>#        size   offset    fstype   [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
>  a:   782336        0    4.2BSD     1024  8192    16 	# (Cyl.    0 - 381)
>  c:   782336        0    unused        0     0       	# (Cyl.    0 - 381)
>  d:   782336        0    unused        0     0       	# (Cyl.    0 - 381)

The sectors/unit value isn't rounded.  Good.  Perhaps it should be checked
instead of the 'c' partition size.  No, I just remembered why not.  Old
labels have to be converted, and the sectors/unit value is guaranteed
to be wrong (being for the whole disk ond not for the BSD slice) except
when there is only one slice, so the 'c' partition size has to be trusted.

The 'd' partition shouldn't be necessary.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504041445.AAA24580>