Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:14:22 +1100 From: Andrew Nesbit <alnesbit@optushome.com.au> To: Barry Irwin <bvi@devco.net>, g.todd@internet.co.nz Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FW: Re: FreeBSD installation discs Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010308221144.0210f050@mail> In-Reply-To: <20010308114455.A813@devco.net> References: <XFMail.010308193646.g.todd@internet.co.nz> <XFMail.010308193646.g.todd@internet.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:44 AM 8/03/01 +0200, Barry Irwin wrote: > > > > Re installing FreeBSD 4.2, I was intending to buy a computer with a large > > Disc(30GB) and dual boot Windows Me and FreeBSD. However, after reading > > the documentation on the 1024 cylinder boot limitations I am now wondering > > whether that is a smart approach. Would it be better to go for a twin HD > > disc machine to overcome these problems. e.g. 10Gb for Windows and separate > > 20Gb drive for FreeBSD. FreeBSD will be my primary operating system, > > Windows for specific non UNIX software. > >Most new bioses dont suffer from this limitation. In anycase you can always >'hack' round it by having a small / partition at the beginning of the disk >from which the kernel can load Yeah, I think that the new BIOSes allow for an addressable range of 2^64 sectors. If a sector is 512 bytes, then that's a total of, erm, a really huge amount of HDD space. -Andrew Nesbit To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.0.20010308221144.0210f050>