Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:02:33 +0100 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Difference of opinion about my disk geometry Message-ID: <20100827070233.000075a8@unknown> In-Reply-To: <4C7715D0.10604@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C7715D0.10604@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:33:04 -0700 Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Below are what the various OS' think about the disk. (Ignore the fact > that the 3rd partition has an unknown type, that used to be a FreeBSD > partition that seems to have been mangled by grub2, which I'm going > to fix later.) When I run FreeBSD fdisk from sysinstall I get the > following message: > It is safe to use 484521/16/63 as the disk geometry blah blah blah, > Do you want to change this? > I've been saying no, but now I think what I want to do is say yes, > and change it to 30401/255/63 which is what Windows and Linux think > it is, and repartition the whole drive. Does that sound reasonable? > > Of course this prompts me to ask the questions of why are we looking > at this differently than Windows and Linux, and what are the > advantages/disadvantages to the 2 methods? CHS is totally obsolete, and can be ignored for anything but really old computers I think - LBA has been used since about 2000. If you use the modern partitioning tool in Windows, diskpart.exe, you don't get told about the geometry at all; if you use gpart in FreeBSD you get told about the fwheads and fwsectors but partitions are specified in terms of an offset. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100827070233.000075a8>