Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:32:35 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, lenzi@cwbone.bsi.com.br, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: boot disk.... Message-ID: <199510311932.MAA10356@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510310215.MAA02834@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Oct 31, 95 12:45:49 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry Lambert stands accused of saying: > > Why? We don't *have* to insist that we be able to boot from an 'a' slice > > after 1024, do we? That's a requirement you've tacked on. > > It's becoming a very common requirement 8( It's one that DOS and Win95 don't meet. That's 80% or more of Intel class machines right there -- doesn't seem very common. > > This is an issue of where a drive media perfection layer belongs, and > > how it can be implemented. I believe bad144 is in the wrong abstract > > location -- which make bad144 an invalid counter argument. > > Media perfection should be a function of the media; ie. the disk itself. > System software should not be forced to make those sort of translations; > it's unfortunate that old media don't have the resources required 8( Media perfection impact write ordering algorithms. As such, it must be visible to the upper layer I/O subsystem, even if it is infact implemented in hardware. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510311932.MAA10356>