From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Nov 7 19:20:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (blaubaer.kn-bremen.de [195.37.179.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5565A1509D for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:20:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: from saturn.kn-bremen.de (uucp@localhost) by blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with UUCP id EAA01077; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:18:59 +0100 Received: (from nox@localhost) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.9.3/8.8.5) id EAA12035; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:17:07 +0100 (MET) From: Juergen Lock Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:17:06 +0100 To: Mike Smith Cc: zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: easyboot far into disk Message-ID: <19991108041705.A11213@saturn.kn-bremen.de> References: <19991107035454.B59629@saturn.kn-bremen.de> <199911071957.LAA13619@dingo.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7i In-Reply-To: <199911071957.LAA13619@dingo.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:57:26AM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > > Rootdev ought to work, actually. But if you get it wrong, the loader > > > will fall back to using currdev. > > > > Hmm then thats strange. I first tried rootdev, which didn't work, and > > then later currdev, which did work, and i believe i used the same value > > both times! Or was rootdev fixed only recently, the boot floppies i > > had lying around and tested this on weren't the latest... > > I thought rootdev was fixed a long time back. If it's not, please tell > me and I'll fix it again. 8) How long back? Guess i have to try a more recent version... > > > > (Maybe this should be added to the FAQ as a method of last resort when > > > > the BIOS boot code can't see above cyl 1024?) > > > > > > From what I've been hearing from people lately, in most cases it's 8GB > > > that's the new sound barrier, > > > > Yea, probably true with later boards. (anyone know if there's a > > real technical reason for that, or just again short-sightedness of > > the BIOS writers? I mean first 32M if i remember right, then 512M, > > then 2G, now 8G... shouldn't everyone know by now that disks are > > getting bigger all the time?) > > It's a limitation of the c/h/s interface and the practical translations > available. Over 8GB we finally have to use LBA mode; the problem there > is that there's still too much legacy hardware out there that will > break if we default to it. It breaks? It doesn't just return an error so you can fall back to the old interface? Or is the problem that there's just not enough space in boot0 for both versions? Regards, -- Juergen Lock (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message