From owner-freebsd-sysinstall@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 22:37:55 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22D46F7 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B2178B for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zeppelin.tachypleus.net (airbears2-136-152-142-65.AirBears2.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.142.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sALMbqEA030012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:37:52 -0800 Message-ID: <546FBEC0.500@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:37:52 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warren Block Subject: Re: Dangerously dedicated mode with FreeBSD 10.1 References: <546F6D79.9060909@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbXi0upd5fXO5dYcLb4hbERlGFBpal2GG8pcLW9Cax848iqK7AR4OJ+2dpTEQfro8StjdvVCrShTYcRin2t5syAKmc6opNyuio= X-Sonic-ID: C;ZlVhB89x5BGU3FZegs/dsg== M;BJ2jB89x5BGU3FZegs/dsg== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd Cc: Rostislav Krasny , freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Sysinstall Work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:37:55 -0000 On 11/21/14 14:32, Warren Block wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> >> On 11/21/14 07:26, Warren Block wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Rostislav Krasny wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've a server with FreeBSD 7.4-STABLE that uses two phisical disks in >>>> a so called "dangerously dedicated mode". There is no other operating >>>> system and no plan to install anything else but FreeBSD. So in my case >>>> this is not dangerous mode at all. >>>> >>>> I want to upgrade it by installing FreeBSD 10.1 from scratch and I >>>> want to use the dedicated disk mode again. How could I do that? >>>> >>>> If I understand it right the new bsdinstall(8) doesn't support the >>>> dedicated disk mode, the old sysinstall(8) is already dead and the >>>> only solution is a manual disk partitioning from shell. The 2.6.5. >>>> Shell Mode Partitioning section of the Handbook is very terse about >>>> that. >>> >>> If you are determined, it should be possible to select a >>> bsdlabel-only format with the Manual partitioning option in the >>> menus, or enter Shell mode on startup and create it with gpart or >>> even bsdlabel. That said, I can't think of any advantages of using >>> a bare bsdlable at all. With 10.1, GPT is available, supports large >>> disks, and is easily alignable.* >> >> Right, just select "BSD" as the partition type. >> >>> *: although it is reported that bsdinstall for 10.1 does not >>> automatically do 4K alignment. But at least there are advantages to >>> using it as a partition scheme. >> >> This has never been true. It does 4K alignment on disks with 4K >> physical sectors (no matter what the logical sector size is). If you >> have disks with larger sectors or preferred boundaries (e.g. a >> striped RAID), it will also align to that. > > I know that it did not automatically do that alignment originally, > which was why I entered PR 161720: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161720 > > After that, I thought it was fixed, and now this appears to be a > regression: > http://forums.freebsd.org/threads/does-bsdinstall-in-10-1-properly-partition-ssds.48993/ > > It has done this since initially committed to the tree before 9.0. If you have a drive with 512 byte physical sectors, it will use 512 byte alignment. If you have a 4K drive, it will use 4K alignment. Is there anywhere in those threads where it misaligns a partition? Most of the discussion just seems to be that it does use 512 byte alignment sometimes, which isn't an issue if you have 512 byte sectors. -Nathan