Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:13:57 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Ulrich Spoerlein <q@uni.de> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sysinstall's fdisk/disklabel should be improved Message-ID: <3FA0F275.696313CC@mindspring.com> References: <20031026175852.GA770@galgenberg.net> <20031029154312.GA777@galgenberg.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > On Tue, 28.10.2003 at 23:29:03 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > It is NOT useless. Why do you think it is? Perhaps you don't relize > > that some BIOS's wont boot from a hard disk that isn't partitioned to > > agree with the specifications of the PeeCee. If you want to treat your > > PC as a Sun, don't -- buy a Sun, FreeBSD runs on that too. > > What exactly do you mean by "PC Specification"? I'm not trying to make a > "dangerously dedicated" disk. I just don't need a spare 63 sectors for > DOS-compatibility. And leaving the first 63 sectors untouched is a > DOS-ism, not a PC-ism. Ironically, the best reference for FDISK-style layout of partition tables, use of the fields in the FDISK partition table structure, and general reference on checksums, 0xAA55, and the rest that I have ever found is the PReP specification, chapter 6. That's Power PC Reference Platform Specification, in case you were wondering; it's a Motorolla document intended for use on Motorolla hardware. Some DEC (Compaq? Hewlett-Compaqard?) Alpha firmware has the same requirement that PReP has in this regard. So do most OSs that run on x86 hardware, even when they are run on non-x86 hardware (Solaris, et. al.). I agree that the code could be cleaned up, but the layout on the disk is pretty intentional. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FA0F275.696313CC>