Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:37:52 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Rostislav Krasny <rosti.bsd@gmail.com>, freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dangerously dedicated mode with FreeBSD 10.1 Message-ID: <546FBEC0.500@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411211527040.27494@wonkity.com> References: <CANt7McFwQJNmBEJGTed%2B27K%2BVAY80V1zJSXBwHC0TmrX1iyPpw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411210815470.12278@wonkity.com> <546F6D79.9060909@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1411211527040.27494@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?546FBEC0.500>