Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:00:19 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: lehey.pad@sni.de, freebsd@hopf.math.purdue.edu, hackers@freebsd.org, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a question about boot-manager Message-ID: <199601302200.PAA07560@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199601301452.BAA15227@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jan 31, 96 01:22:51 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm not sure I see the picture you're painting here. From FreeBSD's point > of view, the following must be met : > 1) The entire root filesystem must be below the 1024 cylinder mark. > 2) If bad144 bad-sector marking has been used (uncommon), the entire BSD > slice must be below the 1024 cylinder mark. Mike is correct. Let me add that if the sparing sectors were moved to the end of the 'a' slice, it would have two effects: a) Restriction #2 above would change to "If bad144 bad-sector marking has been used (uncommon), the root FS and the few sectors following it must be below the 1024 cylinder mark". Essentially, this opens up a lot of space for BSD use on some drives (most notably those where you are likely to use the BAD144 in the first place). b) The bad sector area could be grown at the expense of decreasing the available swap in the 'b' slice following the sparing area. The net effect is you could trade a system with swap that has too many bad sectors to operate correctly for a system that will operate correctly but has slightly less swap. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601302200.PAA07560>