Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:01:39 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, j@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_diskmbr.c Message-ID: <44735.1007899299@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:21:29 %2B0100" References: <20011209102129.F97235@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the > bootblocks are DD mode. I don't see any point in using obsolete fdisk > tables. (There's IMHO only one purpose obsolete fdisk tables are good > for, co-operation with other operating systems in the same machine. > None of my machines uses anything else than FreeBSD.) There are very good reasons NOT to use DD mode if you use certain types of Adaptec SCSI controllers - they simply won't boot from DD. Aside from that, FreeBSD needs to have *one* recommendation for disks, anything else creates too much confusion. It is certainly my impression that the recommendation has been NOT using DD for the IA32 architecture for quite a while now. (The other day a coworker of mine wanted to use DD for some IBM DTLA disks, because he'd heard that the disks performed better that way - something to do with scatter-gather not working right unless you used DD. I'm highly skeptical about this since I have my own measurements from IBM DTLA disks partitioned the normal way, ie. NOT DD, and they show the disks performing extremely well. Anybody else want to comment on this?) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no 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?44735.1007899299>