From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Apr 27 14:07:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07372 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:07:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from aero.org (aero.org [130.221.16.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07346 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:07:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@rush.aero.org) Received: from rush.aero.org ([130.221.201.83]) by aero.org with ESMTP id <111117-2>; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:06:53 -0700 Received: from anpiel.aero.org (anpiel.aero.org [130.221.196.66]) by rush.aero.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA25056 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from anpiel.aero.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anpiel.aero.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04938 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804272106.OAA04938@anpiel.aero.org> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Adaptec 1542 vs. 2940 geometries? Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:06:46 -0700 From: "Mike O'Brien" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Do the Adaptec 1542 and the 2940 translate disk geometries differently? My 1542 died and, not having a spare, we plugged a 2940 into the machine. It didn't seem to work too well (like, things went nuts after trying to start the boot program) so we were wondering if the 1542 and the 2940 use different disk geometry translations? Mike O'Brien To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message