Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:53:47 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is `ccd' broken on Alpha? Message-ID: <20010329085347.A32246@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200103290342.f2T3gae08020@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:42:36PM -0800 References: <20010328000954.C18676@dragon.nuxi.com> <15042.28453.158495.901316@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20010328151503.A88970@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010328152453.A15677@hub.freebsd.org> <200103290342.f2T3gae08020@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:42:36PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
>
> Could it be simply that there are no slices on the alpha? So the `c'
> partition really represents the whole disk on that platform. But on
> the i386 it would just represent the slice, which in general won't be
> the same as the whole disk.
It is possible it has something to do with the slice code.
When I tested it yesterday on on an i386 box, I used
``disklabel -rw daX auto'' before ccdconfig'ing them. So they should
have been dangeriously/truely dedicated. But we do know there is weird
label differences between Alpha and i386....
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Disclaimer: Not speaking for FreeBSD, just expressing my own opinion.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010329085347.A32246>