From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 28 06:36:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A987B37B401 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E0943F85 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:36:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ripper@eskimo.com) Received: from eskimo.com (ripper@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18832 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:36:43 -0700 Received: (from ripper@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA29430 for freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:36:42 -0700 From: Ross Lippert To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030428063642.A28551@eskimo.eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i WWW-Home-Page: http://www.eskimo.com/~ripper Subject: installing with cylinders>16383 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:36:50 -0000 Hi, I have a 40GB drive which reports its true number of cylinders to fdisk instead of 16383. From what I have read, >8.4GB disks can have more than 16383 cylinders, but should still report just 16383 because modern disks give their size information via a different interface. Either I have misinterpreted the standard or this is a non-standard disk. Either way, sysinstall complains during the fdisk phase that this drive configuration is 'impossible' and picks other values for the C/H/S info, suggesting that I put the geom in by hand during fdisk. I did the (g) option and entered in what I thought was the right thing 16383/16/63. The install proceeded and things seem to work. The reported size of the disk never changed through any of this. But I wonder, was the the right thing to do? Should I have taken the 4863/255/63 numbers that sysinstall suggested? I am not subscribed to this list, so please respond directly. thanks, -r