Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 05:47:50 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, josue@compacto.nexos.com.br Cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bad144 Message-ID: <199712121847.FAA01197@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
>> bad144 is normally only used for old MFM and ESDI drives, since modern >> drives remap bad blocks themself so that they appear to haeve 0 bad >> blocks. Perhaps the slice size is wrong. > >Is it safe to install the FreeBSD without using bad144 to scan the drive? >What I mean is: does FreeBSD 2.2.5 uses ATA's bios capability of mapping >bad blocks? It's fairly safe. I always scan drives with `dd', and I haven't used bad144 except for testing after I threw out my ESDI drives many years ago. I don't know of any BIOS capability for mapping bad blocks. Modern ATA drives do it independently of the BIOS. >> >2. Is there any problem in continuing the install process, even with the >> >bad144 warning? >> >> Probably. > >I didn't understand this. If the modern drives do the bad block mapping by >themself, why can't I just ignore the warning or skip bad block scan? If you enable bad144 then you have to initialize it properly. Don't enable it unless it is needed. Brucehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712121847.FAA01197>