Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:33:50 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Cc: proff@profane.iq.org (Julian Assange) Subject: Re: ide name slot allocation problem Message-ID: <199611020933.KAA27255@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199610291116.WAA00431@profane.iq.org> from Julian Assange at "Oct 29, 96 10:16:49 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Julian Assange wrote: > The physical arrangement is a master ide on each > controller and no slave. Controller is triton - on > board controller. Unlike SCSI, IDE name slot allocation has always been based on ``physical slots'' (i.e., two slots per controller, regardless of whether a drive is connected or not). The same is true for e.g. the fd driver. > bash# newfs /dev/rwd2s1 > newfs: /dev/rwd2s1: `1' partition is unavailable Usage error. You gotta disklabel that slice first, and inside the label, you create partitions `a' through `h' (as desired). See the updated topic 2.15 in the FAQ for conventions in naming the partitions. > The data for partition 0 is: > sysid 165,(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) > start 63, size 204561 (99 Meg), flag 80 > beg: cyl 0/ sector 1/ head 1; > end: cyl 202/ sector 63/ head 15 > The data for partition 1 is: > sysid 165,(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) > start 204624, size 3119760 (1523 Meg), flag 0 > beg: cyl 203/ sector 1/ head 0; > end: cyl 1023/ sector 63/ head 15 Having two FreeBSD slices is basically useless. Of course, you _can_ do it, but you gotta disklabel them as well, so you gain nothing by storing it in two slices (as opposed to two BSD partitions), except perhaps the flexibility that you might easily return one of the slices to another o/s later if you desire. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611020933.KAA27255>