Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:47:21 +0100
From:      Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>
To:        Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_diskmbr.c
Message-ID:  <20011210134721.C11774@cicely8.cicely.de>
In-Reply-To: <20011210110438.A72135@uriah.heep.sax.de>
References:  <20011209102129.F97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> <200112092015.fB9KFJe01121@mass.dis.org> <200112092200.fB9M0J660085@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20011209224310.A17244@dragon.nuxi.com> <200112092200.fB9M0J660085@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20011210070333.D88F33810@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011210110438.A72135@uriah.heep.sax.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:04:38AM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Peter Wemm wrote:
> 
> > Can you please clarify for me what specifically you do not like.. Is it:
> > - the cost of 32K of disk space on an average disk these days?
> >   (and if so, is reducing that to one sector instead of 62 sufficient?)
> 
> The idea of a "geometry" that does not even remotely resembles the
> actual geometry and only causes additional hassles, like disks being
> not portable between controllers that have a different idea of that
> geometry (since the design of this table is missing an actual field
> to specify the geometry).  Incidentally, it's only what you call
> "intuition" that finally stumpled across the 10-years old Jolitz
> fake fdisk values.  So IOW, it took the BIOS vendors ten years to
> produce a BIOS that would break on it :), and the breakage (division
> by 0) was only since they needed black magic in order to infer a
> geometry value that was short-sightedly never specified in the table
> itself.

Two points to add why I would miss that feature:
- Having bootable media such as MOs or zips.
- There is no way to find out the BIOS geometry when creating a
  bootable disk inside FreeBSD.

> > - you don't like typing "s1" in the device name?
> 
> Aesthetically, yes, this one too. :)
> 
> > "disklabel -rw ad2 auto" is one form.  That should not use fdisk at all.
> > This is quite fine, and nobody wants that to go away.
> 
> Good to hear.
> 
> Well, actually i always use "disklabel -Brw daN auto", partly because
> this sequence is wired into my fingers, and since i mentally DAbelieve
> that having more bootstrappable disks couldn't harm. ;-)  As laid out
> in another message, i eventually got the habit of even including a
> root partition mirror on each disk as well.  So each of my disks should
> be able to boot a single-user FreeBSD.

I was already happy to have them, but I can't create a propper bootable
fdisk table without knowing what the BIOS thinks about geometry.
It is the typical problem that you boot DOS, fdisk /mbr and then install
FreeBSD...

> > I advocate that the bootable form (where boot1.s is expected to do the
> > job of both the mbr *and* the partition boot) is evil and should at the very
> > least be fixed.
> 
> Fixing is OK to me.  I think to recognize the dummy fdisk table of DD mode,
> it would be totally sufficient to verify slice 4 being labelled with 50000
> blocks, and the other slices being labelled 0.  We do not support any
> physical disk anymore that is only 25 MB in size :).  So all the remaining

Flash Media comes in mind - but I hardly beleave it to be exactly 25M.

> (INT 0x13 bootstrap) values could be anything -- even something that most
> BIOSes would recognize as a valid fdisk table.
> 
> >  It should be something that is explicitly activated, and
> > not something that you get whether you want it or not.
> 
> I don't fully understand that.  DD mode has always been an explicit
> decision.  Even in the above, the specification of -B explicitly tells
> to install that bootstrap.

The example in Handbook 12.3.2.2 should get the B flag removed.
It's about adding disks and not about adding bootable disks.

> As David O'Brien wrote:
> 
> > > Its design is antique.  Or rather: it's missing a design.
> 
> > Jorg, why not just buy an Alpha or Sun Blade and run FreeBSD on it??
> 
> I don't see much value in an Alpha.  Maybe a Sun some day, who knows?

Not for the far future - but I would still prefer them over a PC.
But my biggest hopes go for the UltraSparc port.

-- 
B.Walter              COSMO-Project         http://www.cosmo-project.de
ticso@cicely.de         Usergroup           info@cosmo-project.de


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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011210134721.C11774>