"Richard P. Koett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Reindl wrote: > > "J.C. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:03:21 +0100, Martin Reindl > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> "J.C. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:50:48 -0800, "J.C. Roberts" > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> (2) When doing the installation disklabel, the "suggested" > >>>>> starting offset for the 'a' partition is 0? I know using an > >>>>> offset of 0 is discouraged on i386 and other systems (default is > >>>>> 63), so I figured I'd ask if using a 0 offset is the > >>>>> "best/correct" way for alpha? > >>>> > >>>> Just for those searching the misc@ archives... > >>>> > >>>> I received info off-list that disklabel is doing the right thing by > >>>> using an offset of 0 on the alpha architecture. > >>> > >>> I wonder anyway how you got the impression it was doing wrong and > >>> the offset would be 63 for the first slice. FAQ 14.1 only talks > >>> about i386 and amd64 under 'Disklabel tricks and tips/Leave first > >>> track free'. It's clear imo. > >> > >> There's a difference between thinking disklabel is doing the wrong > >> thing and just making sure it's doing the right thing. ;-) > >> > >> The alpha PSW is a weird beast with it's "Dual BIOS" where the first > >> AlphaBIOS/ARC is for running WinNT4 with x86 BIOS emulation support > >> and the second, the SRM Console, is for running Tru64 and OpenVMS. > >> > >> The guys I've talked to at Digital/Compaq/HP told me the multitude of > >> alpha SRM's are very much closed source (due to the fact they control > >> VMS licensing/revenue) and obviously, each SRM is specifically built > >> for each machine model. On the weird machines like the PSW where > >> multi/dual-booting NT, VMS and OSF/1 can be done, there *might* be > >> some mad hackery in this particular SRM with a requirement for > >> keeping the first (logical) track free for the MBR. > >> > >>> From what I've read, I think the way the linux guys have hacked a > >>> way > >> into supporting the use of AlphaBIOS/ARC on the PSW is by having the > >> MBR and a small FAT partition for lilo and such. This same approach > >> is used on the PSW when running WinNT4 with NTFS. > >> > >> In a situation where you are *only* running OpenBSD, using a offset > >> of 0 is probably just fine. On the other hand, if you happen to have > >> WinNT installed someplace (i.e. installed on another disk), the > >> supposedly "harmless" tag that NT writes on all disks might make a > >> real mess of your OBSD install. > >> > >> The problem is not so much that the OpenBSD docs are unclear, > >> instead, the problem is the setup of particular machine, > >> particularly in muti-boot configs, can be very convoluted. I only > >> asked because I'm just trying to *understand* what the heck I'm > >> doing and what all the possible ramifications are. -In other words, > >> curiosity. ;-) > > > > So they only problem now is documenting how to multiboot OpenBSD and > > WinNT on alpha? Pardon me, but i don't expect Nick to put up a section > > about this in the FAQ. Especially since it would involve explaining > > AlphaBIOS fiddling which has nothing to do with OpenBSD and is a major > > PITA anyway. > > > > martin > > Lighten up a bit man. There is nothing in J.C.'s post that implies he > expects "a section about this in the FAQ". > > Maybe there ought to be a section in the FAQ about how even the most > tangential reference to it on misc is like kicking a chicken coop.
Obviously you know so much more than me. Reminds my i should go back to hacking and quit this short digression to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
