Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:42:36 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is `ccd' broken on Alpha? Message-ID: <200103290342.f2T3gae08020@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20010328152453.A15677@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20010328000954.C18676@dragon.nuxi.com> <15042.28453.158495.901316@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20010328151503.A88970@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010328152453.A15677@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20010328152453.A15677@hub.freebsd.org>, David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:15:03PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:09:25PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > It works fine for me using 'c' paritions. > > > > In general one should not use the `c' partition. Aren't you also seeing > > disklabel complain that your `c' partition type isn't "unused"? > > Sigh. Using `c' rather than `e' (or [abd-h]) as the ccd partition works. > So there is definitely something being treated differently on the Alpha > than the i386 platform. Could it be simply that there are no slices on the alpha? So the `c' partition really represents the whole disk on that platform. But on the i386 it would just represent the slice, which in general won't be the same as the whole disk. Warning: every time I think I understand the differences between da0, da0c, da0s1, and da0s1c I find a counter-example. So I might be completely off track here (no pun intended). John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103290342.f2T3gae08020>