Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 02:48:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), karsten@rohrbach.de (Karsten W. Rohrbach), andre@akademie3000.de (Andre Albsmeier), intmktg@CAM.ORG (Marc Tardif), freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ccd with other filesystems Message-ID: <200010010248.TAA19148@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20001001120453.I43885@wantadilla.lemis.com> from "Greg Lehey" at Oct 01, 2000 12:04:53 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The kernel and other files loaded by the loader myst be below
> > the 1024 cylinder boundary on the disk, since the FrrBSD boot
> > loader, unlike Linux's LILO, can not read past cylinder 1024,
> > since it does not understand how to make LBA BIOS calls
> > properly.
>
> This is no longer the case. The restriction was lifted a few months
> back.
Someone should tell my Sony Vaio, which hated having 4.1 installed
on it past 8G on an 18G drive.
> > I have several systems, where the entirety of the disk (the "c"
> > partition) is mounted as a single file system.
>
> You can do it, but it's not a good idea. I'd like to see a good
> reason for doing this.
If "c" is defined to be "the whole disk" , and you want to use "the
whole disk", it makes sense.
I uses to mount most of my CDROMs that way, as well.
> > This appears to be a problem with not checking the label for
> > overlap, since a mounted FS should not be spam'able under any
> > circumstances. Protecting people from spam'ming unmounted FSs by
> > pounding on "c" might be a laudable goal, but provides only a tiny
> > amount of additional protection.
>
> This is a separate issue. Yes, disklabel should warn about a number
> of things, including overlapping partitions and incorrect partition
> types (c should be "unused", because by definition it overlaps all
> other partitions).
I really _don't_ want the use of "c" broken ("fixed").
The "c" partition is not "defined" to overlap; it merely does
so by default and by istorical convention. I threw away this
convention on many of my systems long ago, when I resigned
myself to aving a DOS parititon table on my machines, when
the Alpha and PReP platforms decided to require it as well.
I have eight or ten disks that have non-overlapping "c" values
that place their regions between "b" and "d" regions on the disk.
If that's not enough, the best argument I have for three of those
is "so that I can have one more partition that I would otherwise
be permitted to have".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010010248.TAA19148>