Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:39:15 +0200 (CEST)
From:      "Didrik Madheden" <didrik@kth.se>
To:        "Miles Nordin" <carton@Ivy.NET>
Cc:        freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Sparc64 partitions compatible with PC?
Message-ID:  <28735.80.217.136.213.1216593555.squirrel@webmail.sys.kth.se>
In-Reply-To: <oqprp8ls5j.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET>
References:  <57797.91.95.8.243.1216313772.squirrel@webmail.sys.kth.se> <oqbq0w8ipv.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET> <64373.91.95.8.243.1216323299.squirrel@webmail.sys.kth.se> <49814.91.95.8.243.1216416842.squirrel@webmail.sys.kth.se> <oqprp8ls5j.fsf@castrovalva.Ivy.NET>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>> "dm" == Didrik Madheden <didrik@kth.se> writes:
>
>     dm> 2016 blocks too long.
>
> possibly the command line tools like fdisk and bsdlabel will let you
> enter with better resolution?  i don't know.
The label editor invoked through sysinstall already let me specify values
with higher resolution. The problem is that that yields 2016 possible
places where the FS could start. (As you pointed out, and as I suspected,
you need to hit the right spot) And that's more manual labour than I'm
willing to sacrifice. I tried three values, aligned to 1008 sectors. (1008
is the cylinder size)
As I said in my other mail, I've no successfully installed FBSD on the
Sparc again and I'm now backing it all up over FTP.

>     dm> I suppose T for toggle newfs=N will do the job, but I'm
>     dm> paranoid, so I want a second opinion.
>
> second opinion is, don't use the installer at all.  Install onto
> another disk, or use a livecd.  but it's just an opinion.
>
> Remember not to make any extended MBR partitions, ever.
>
> It may actually be a problem just to make an MBR partition with a BSD
> label inside it, because the label could get written at the beginning
> of the MBR slice, somewhere in the middle of your sparc partition.
Hmm, what I tried, AFAIK, was to make a dd (Dangerously dedicated)
partition, ranging from absolute 0-the last sector. Since the relevant
label was not the first one, I suppose it would be contained within the dd
partition?
Not that it really matters now...

> #    size       offset
> #    ---------- ----------
>   a:   20972448          0
>   b:    2097648      41612
>   c:   54757584          0
>   d:   20972448      20806
>   e:  737378208      43693
>
> ^^^ this is a crazy disklabel with lots of overlapping partitions.
> AFAICT it's not right.
Actually, the only thing that's downright wrong is C, which overlaps other
labels. The other labels add up just fine. Remember that offset and size
are in different units. 1 cylinder = 1008 sectors. (Or whatever the units
are) If you put the labels in the order a, d, b, e, and you'll see that it
all adds up.

/Didrik Madheden




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28735.80.217.136.213.1216593555.squirrel>