Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:32:35 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith)
Cc:        terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, lenzi@cwbone.bsi.com.br, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: boot disk....
Message-ID:  <199510311932.MAA10356@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <199510310215.MAA02834@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Oct 31, 95 12:45:49 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry Lambert stands accused of saying:
> > Why?  We don't *have* to insist that we be able to boot from an 'a' slice
> > after 1024, do we?  That's a requirement you've tacked on.
> 
> It's becoming a very common requirement 8(  

It's one that DOS and Win95 don't meet.  That's 80% or more of Intel class
machines right there -- doesn't seem very common.

> > This is an issue of where a drive media perfection layer belongs, and
> > how it can be implemented.  I believe bad144 is in the wrong abstract
> > location -- which make bad144 an invalid counter argument.
> 
> Media perfection should be a function of the media; ie. the disk itself.
> System software should not be forced to make those sort of translations; 
> it's unfortunate that old media don't have the resources required 8(

Media perfection impact write ordering algorithms.  As such, it must be
visible to the upper layer I/O subsystem, even if it is infact implemented
in hardware.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510311932.MAA10356>