From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 18:37:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D26106564A for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:37:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout027.mac.com (asmtpout027.mac.com [17.148.16.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BD48FC17 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:37:21 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from macbook-pro.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by asmtp027.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KYZ00MU87PI8090@asmtp027.mac.com> for freebsd-geom@freebsd.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:37:03 -0800 (PST) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003080155 From: Marcel Moolenaar In-reply-to: <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:36:54 -0800 Message-id: References: <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com> <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> To: Andriy Gapon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: Pete French , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:37:22 -0000 On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > 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. Exactly. That is exactly the violation of the spec I was referring to. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com