From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 15:45:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDB116A41F for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:45:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD55943D48 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:45:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j89FovlZ054016; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:50:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Peter Jeremy Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:45:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200509081418.47794.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20050909071132.GA9121@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20050909071132.GA9121@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509091145.27676.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.85.1, clamav-milter version 0.85 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bigger boot block size? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:45:48 -0000 On Friday 09 September 2005 03:11 am, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:18:44PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >I have been working on boot2 recently. I faced constant problem > > with boot2 size limitation. Can we have bigger boot block size > > (aka BBSIZE)? In the future, we may have to support different > > file system to boot from and we won't have any space to add the > > support without dropping UFS1 support. > > I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all boot2. boot2 has to be > installed onto a specific filesystem so there's no reason why we > can't have different boot2 binaries for CD9660, UFS1, UFS2 etc. Huh? boot2 is not installed onto a specific file system and cd9660 is not supported natively AFAIK. '-C' option only lets you mount cd9660 as a root file system. Jung-uk Kim