Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:40:09 -0700 From: Jason Spencer <jspencer@epsb.net> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dangerously Dedicated Message-ID: <f04330101b63e03840335@[10.250.1.81]> In-Reply-To: <200011192214.eAJMEPG03693@billy-club.village.org> References: <3A18304B.689C2CFE@glue.umd.edu> <200011191657.eAJGvnZ63007@cwsys.cwsent.com> <3A180EA0.31926227@glue.umd.edu> <20001119094725.B66448@dragon.nuxi.com> <200011192214.eAJMEPG03693@billy-club.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:14 PM -0700 11/19/2000, Warner Losh wrote: >: I'm a little confused here. Why are slices demanded by the Intel >: arhictecture? > >The BIOS demands that they are there. At least some modern BIOSes >don't do well when they aren't there. > >It is the PC-AT architecture to be more specific. > >: We've been successfully using DD mode for years now, if slices are >"demanded" >: what kind of voodoo have we been using? > >The problem is the bogus MBR that the DD writes confuses some BIOSes >and causes your disks to be non-bootable. > >: Is there some way or ways in which the 4-slot table is superior to DD-mode? > >The 4 slot table already is there in DD mode. It just happens to >contain completely bogus data. > >: You mentioned not having enough space for boot0. Why can't we just change >: DD-mode to have space for boot0? > >Sure, you can do that by putting a proper MBR on the disk :-). The >whole problem comes in with the bogus MBR that DD puts on the disk. So maybe we need to change the docs. When I chose DD mode I thought "Okay, I'm not going to be using MS *anything* so DD mode will just reduce some overhead perhaps and make things work like the more sane platforms." I had no idea that actually I was faking out the BIOS with bogus data. I thought "dangerous" was used in the cute sense of the word ;) So does this mean I'm going to have to format my disks when I say, upgrade to 5.0? On a related note, is this anything to worry about? $ pstat -s Device 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Type /dev/ad0s1b 563072 0 563072 0% Interleaved /dev/rad2s1b 267248 0 267248 0% Interleaved One of my swap partitions shows up as a raw device and the other doesn't. -j. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f04330101b63e03840335>