Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:35:19 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check Message-ID: <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com> References: <E1Noh4B-000JjD-5u@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 08/03/2010 19:55 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: > On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Pete French wrote: > >>> To clarify: the protective MBR is there only to protect the GPT >>> disk from tools that do not understand the GPT. Any GPT-aware >>> tool will treat the disk as a GPT disk. Consequently: the MBR >>> is inferior to the GPT... >> The queston is then, why isn't Windows treating it as GPT ? > > Ask Microsoft. So far I've only seen violations to the spec. At > least Apple kept to the spirit of it... According to my understanding it's the opposite as much as I hate saying this. My understanding is that valid GPT scheme _must_ provide only a protective MBR, i.e. MBR where there is only partition and it is of type 0xEE. That is, any "hybrid MBR" is not a valid GPT scheme. Google turns up a lot of stuff on this topic. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B954367.3070804>