Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 14:34:44 -0400 From: "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@ai.mit.edu> To: phk@ref.tfs.com Cc: dyson@Root.COM, sos@FreeBSD.org, paul@isl.cf.ac.uk, terry@cs.weber.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NetBSD supports LBA and large (EIDE) drives Message-ID: <199505031834.OAA15789@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199505031750.KAA13325@ref.tfs.com> (message from Poul-Henning Kamp on Wed, 3 May 1995 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The problems that Hale has noted are entirely on the software end -- > that there is little or no standardization about how the BIOS converts > beetween C/H/S addresses and LBAs. This is only an issue when sharing > a disk with another OS, or when booting from it, and is analagous to > the standard geometry translation compatibility problems. You know, FreeBSD can exist on the same disk as other OS's. That's a non-sequitur. NetBSD certainly coexists with other OSes, even on disks using LBA mode. > LBA mode is not `needed' for IDE drives smaller than 8GB. However: And nobody has been insane enough to make a 8GB+ IDE drive yet. Precisely because software vendors are being extraordinarily lame about it. Someone has to take the initiative, and it's *much* cheaper for the software vendors. > 1) In practice, the differences between BIOS LBA implementations seem > to be less annoying than the differences between BIOS C/H/S > implementations. Well, you're in for a surprise then... I sincerely doubt that. I've been following this for years.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505031834.OAA15789>