From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 10 16:53:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA13043 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA13026 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id BAA17169; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 01:52:29 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA11156; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 01:34:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19970311013430.LC54832@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 01:34:30 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: dgy@rtd.com (Don Yuniskis) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: Disklabel at sysinstall References: <199703090121.SAA24006@seagull.rtd.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199703090121.SAA24006@seagull.rtd.com>; from Don Yuniskis on Mar 8, 1997 18:21:23 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Don Yuniskis wrote: > I was just looking at the disk label on an IDE drive > on a 2.1R system. Basically: > size offset type > a 539041 75776 4.2BSD > b 75776 0 swap > c 614817 0 unused > But, sc is 1008 and nc is 609 for a "theoretical" su of 613872 > (though 'disklabel' reports su as 614871). > > So, the first question is, why the ~950 sector discrepancy? For a SCSI drive, this would be normal (since there's no uniform geometry, so you can't express the `su' value as any C*H*S term). For an IDE drive, it's surprising, since IMHO the values are taken from the BIOS anyway. > Second question, why is partition c labeled as "unused"? Since it's not used. :-) It's an alias for the entire slice (or entire disk if you don't use slices). > And, I assume the su figure should reflect the BIOS > settings of the drive (and not necessarily the drive's > size or geometry). Yep, for a non-sliced disk. For a sliced disk, it should reflect the number of blocks that is mentioned in the fdisk table for the BSD slice. > Lastly, is there anything that I should be wary of wrt > a manual disklabel-newfs? Should sysinstall create > entries in disktab to reflect the actual settings used > during the install (wasn't this true of earlier -- like > 1.1R days -- releases)? sysinstall normally does this, although it always creates a non-sliced name for the root filesystem (like wd0a), and sliced names for everything else (like wd0s1e). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)