From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 3 07:30:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA75106564A for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:30:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D928FC12 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id JAA00209; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:30:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1PDXnm-0009rb-Aa; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4CD10F98.2060007@icyb.net.ua> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:30:32 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101029 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" References: <4CD04425.4020204@icyb.net.ua> <4CD104D7.7000208@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <4CD104D7.7000208@yandex.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: geom_part_mbr vs user X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:30:38 -0000 on 03/11/2010 08:44 Andrey V. Elsukov said the following: > On 02.11.2010 20:02, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> But I still believe that geom_part_mbr "thinking" that it is smarter than me is >> incorrect. Yeah, keep using CHS params for some defaults, etc, but do obey what I >> explicitly specify if doesn't violate fundamental constraints like media size or >> slice overlaps. > > I think it was done for maximum compatibility. Some utilities assume that partitions > will be aligned on cylinder boundaries. Possibly. Those utilities likely need some modernization too. Strictly speaking modern (ATA) drives don't even report any CHS numbers. So we mostly just make up some odd [non-even :-)] numbers and then base pretty important decisions on those made up numbers. -- Andriy Gapon