From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 09:39:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E8416A4D0 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:39:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D47D43D49 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:39:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from malcolm.kay@internode.on.net) Received: from beta.home (ppp129-18.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.129.18])i589ctHY045617; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:08:56 +0930 (CST) From: Malcolm Kay Organization: at home To: Ben Paley Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:08:54 +0930 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200406061204.i56C4OAQ001151@mist.nodomain> <200406080114.54447.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> <200406072050.22859.ben@spooty.net> In-Reply-To: <200406072050.22859.ben@spooty.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200406081908.54609.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> cc: Dan Strick cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dangerous file system / disk problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:39:02 -0000 On Tuesday 08 June 2004 05:20, Ben Paley wrote: > On Monday 07 June 2004 16:44, Malcolm Kay wrote: > > Notice the size recorded for this slice is zero. > > > > If the "cylinders=155061 heads=16 sectors/track=63" is somewhere > > near the reasonable possible geometry description then virtually > > the entire disk has been allocated to the FreeBSD slice. > > Yes it is, all of it (or, all of it that I could withot going 'dangerously > dedicated'). I have never had any intention of putting Windows on this > disk. I think W98 just assumed it 'cos it was the primary master. > I now have a clearer impression of the situation. I had erroneously understood windows was actually running from that slice and that it must have really been bigger than it appeared. > > But seriously, does any of this suggest a course of action to you? I'm > planning to try the "set sysid to 0" plan... what if that doesn't work? > Sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps windows is seeing the slice as a fs it knows about but finds it unformatted, so is offering to do that for you. So maybe setting sysid to zero (which I think registers as an undefined slice) will stop windows making the offer. Whatever else I can't see how this would make the situation worse. Good luck, Malcolm