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>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712121847.FAA01197>