Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:38:33 +0200
From:      Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
To:        Bart Lateur <bart.lateur@skynet.be>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: better bootloaders?
Message-ID:  <20000421133833.A51667@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de>
In-Reply-To: <3902c88c.9940216@relay.skynet.be>; from bart.lateur@skynet.be on Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:24:15AM %2B0000
References:  <200004200734.JAA00777@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de> <3902c88c.9940216@relay.skynet.be>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:24:15AM +0000, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:34:56 +0200 (CEST), Christoph Kukulies wrote:
> 
> >Correct me if I'm wrong but given you have a 20 GB IDE disk with 
> >one half (the first half ) with a Win98 installed then there is no way
> >with the present FreeBSD install disk set to boot a FreeBSD partition
> >(installation) that is installed on the second half of that hard disk.
> 
> I'm pretty damn sure this is the same thing being asked here several
> times a week: Your BSD root partition must be inside the first 1024
> cylinders of the IDE disk on most (?) systems. It's a BIOS restriction,
> i.e. before FreeBSD can even try to boot. The second half of a 20 GB
> disk sounds like it's too far in the back of the disk.
> 
> The approach I would recommend, is  split the Windows partition into two
> parts: a first smaller part, (primary partition), for booting purposes,
> containing (mainly) the system, including the Windows directory. Next,
> the FreeBSD partition; and finally another Windows partition, up to the
> end of the disk. This would make a separate logical disk, from Windows'
> point of view, where the user can store their data. 

Whether this question is asked several times a week or not, my question
was if there is a solution. Splitting the first partition and the 
remedy you give is just the problem I was describing and was looking a
solution for.

Be it a BIOS issue or not, why shouldn't it be possible to
write a bootloader that does not use the BIOS. How does
the Windows NT loader do it? Is there the same restriction, that
NT has to have it's bootable partition in reach within 1024 cylinders?




> 
>    HTH,
>    Bart.
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message

-- 
Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000421133833.A51667>