Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:01:25 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: usb/da vs sata geometry calculations (was Re: Switchover to CAM ATA?) Message-ID: <20100425080125.GA12283@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20100424193034.GA9853@alchemy.franken.de> References: <4BD06BD9.6030401@FreeBSD.org> <20100424193034.GA9853@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, Sorry to interrupt this thread with an off-topic question, but it seems vaguely related, and you folk seem to be the right ones to ask: I've recently done a drive upgrade in a 1U rack machine that only had space for the two active drives that were in it, and I couldn't afford the down-time that it would take to install from scratch. So I formatted and populated the first replacement drive in an external USB cradle, and when it was looking like a good replacement for the (gmirror'd) image that was running, I did the physical swap, and all was good, as expected. All except that that the identical drive that I inserted as the second element of the mirror would *not* accept a copy of the first disk's MBR block (with fdisk). It said that the calculated geometry was incompatible. Luckily for me (I think) the calculated geometry was a megabyte or so *larger* than the first drive, so I was still able to bsdlabel it to match, and slot it into the gmirror as planned. Was this the result of the umass/da driver having a different synthetic geometry calculation routine than the SATA driver? This was all on an 8-STABLE system about 400 days old, fwiw. Should I expect any on-going badness as a result of this difference in "geometry" between two identical drives? Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100425080125.GA12283>