Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:36:54 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check Message-ID: <FB4B329E-807F-4A47-A86B-AE3BC049A6DC@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> References: <E1Noh4B-000JjD-5u@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com> <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FB4B329E-807F-4A47-A86B-AE3BC049A6DC>