From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 30 15:09:20 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7B216A400 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (gizmo.acns.msu.edu [35.8.1.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A10B13C455 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2UF89hX059202; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:08:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: (from jerrymc@localhost) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l2UF88XT059201; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:08:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jerrymc) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:08:08 -0400 From: Jerry McAllister To: Antony Mawer Message-ID: <20070330150808.GA59175@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> References: <20070328204126.GA27217@xor.obsecurity.org> <460C389B.7060703@mawer.org> <20070329232207.GA56299@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <460C5214.4020402@mawer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <460C5214.4020402@mawer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Jerry McAllister , Kris Kennaway , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "Marc G. Fournier" Subject: Re: Why is 'disklabel'ng a new drive so difficult? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:20 -0000 On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:56:04AM +1000, Antony Mawer wrote: > On 30/03/2007 9:22 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:07:23AM +1000, Antony Mawer wrote: > ... > >>Is it important to use 16 as the offset still, or is this a historical > >>piece of information that is no longer relevant? Or is this is a bug in > >>disklabel that should be fixed? > > > >As I indicated in another post in this thread, it appears to > >be vestigial. I have never used it for a bsdlabel(disklabel) > >being done on a slice - since 1998. > > I just went back and re-read your other messages in the thread. I must > have glossed over that part of them - my apologies! I too looked at my > sysinstall-created labels, and they were all at offset of 0. > > I actually started writing my own partitioning/labelling tool based on > libdisk, as part of a custom install CD I was building, but discovered > that it did not support non-disk devices (eg. gmirror)... I started > looking at trying to hack support into libdisk to do so (and made some > success), but in the end decided that it was probably a task better > suited for someone that knows libdisk better than I... Interesting. I have never monkeyed with that. Maybe I should. I might learn something. ////jerry > > As a result I went back to looking at fdisk/bsdlabel to see what I could > do using them instead... >