From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 8 19:19:16 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AED16A4CE for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:19:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A549543D1F for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:19:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) j08JJERF020071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:19:14 +1100 Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])j08JJDxP046710; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:19:13 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from pjeremy@localhost)j08JJDsZ046709; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:19:13 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 06:19:13 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Warren Message-ID: <20050108191849.GG39552@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200501081518.33396.shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> <200501081628.05881.shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> <200501081722.09390.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200501081658.10291.shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200501081658.10291.shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-STABLE failing to read 4.x-Stable hdd X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:19:16 -0000 On Sat, 2005-Jan-08 16:58:10 +1000, Warren wrote: >> I didn't suggest you trash it I just want to know if it was setup as >> dangerously dedicated, and what the output of the fdisk command on both >> drives is.. > >Soz mis understood.. Try running disklabel on ad0s1 and ad1s1. Slice numbers should now be treated as mandatory on sliced disks. -- Peter Jeremy