As Peter Wemm wrote:
> There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks.
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1
>
> Dont use "disklabel -B -rw da$n auto". Use "disklabel -rw da$n auto".
All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the
bootblocks are DD mode. I don't see
$B$"$C$?$+$$29$b$j;}$C$F$^$9$+!)(B
$B4($$?4$rKd$a$F$/$l$k$=$s$J=P2q$$$,$3$3$K$O$"$j$^$9!#(B
$B$?$a$7$K$"$J$?$N5$;}$A$r=q$-9~$s$G$4$i$s(B
$B4j$$$O$+$J$i$:3p$$$^$9$h!*(B
Http://www.if-j.net
$B=P2q$$7O%5%$%H!V%$%U!W$G$9!#(B
$B$"$J$?$KKbK!$r%F%/%^%/%^%d%3%s‘{(B
$B=w@-L5NA$5$i$K%-%c%C%7%g%P
Andrea Campi wrote:
> > Well, you're sending out packets faster than your hardware can
> > transmit them.
> So, at least now we know what to answer if the question arises again (I
> has several people who send 'me too' emails to me).
I was having the same problem on my 4.4-RELEASE box. After
> All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the
> bootblocks are DD mode. I don't see any point in using obsolete fdisk
> tables. (There's IMHO only one purpose obsolete fdisk tables are good
> for, co-operation with other operating systems in the same machine.
> None of my
On 09-Dec-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (The other day a coworker of mine wanted to use DD for some IBM DTLA
> disks, because he'd heard that the disks performed better that way -
> something to do with scatter-gather not working right unless you used
> DD. I'm highly skeptical about this s
Hi!
Normally, I'd just commit this and wait for the flak, but since I'm changing
the default behaviour when copying directories, I thought people might care.
This patch fixes PR#27970 (directory times not preserved with -p) and
PR#31633 (non-empty read-only directories not copied). It does so b
As Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> I don't understand the need some people have for using something
> that is labelled as DANGEROUS.
Historically, it hasn't been labelled that, it only later became
common terminology for it -- in the typical half-joking manner.
> No, it won't hurt your cats but you ma
As [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are very good reasons NOT to use DD mode if you use certain
> types of Adaptec SCSI controllers - they simply won't boot from DD.
Never seen. All my SCSI controllers so far booted from my disks
(obviously :).
I figure from Peter's comment in that piece of co
> As Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> > There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks.
> >
> > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1
> >
> > Dont use "disklabel -B -rw da$n auto". Use "disklabel -rw da$n auto".
>
> All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the
> bootblocks are DD
> (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 DT
> I have a question about Freebsd driver. If we want to support some
> options in driver(like speed and duplex mode setting) , user can use this
> option to change driver configurations. I am not sure whether freebsd
> driver support driver parameter or something else. Can you give me some
> sugg
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC
>architecture specification.
Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
mail for the reasons. For FreeBSD, it's obsolete since we don't need
to rely on fdis
Hi
Now that I have your attention, please listen up, this may have some
far-reaching consequences.
We currently have 2 telnet sources in the src/ tree; src/crypto/telnet
and the "base" telnet spread around in (src/*/*telnet*/).
The "base" telnet is a complete subset of src/crypto telnet, and as
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 22:52:58 +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 09-Dec-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> (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-gathe
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 12:15:19 -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
>> As Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>>> There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks.
>>>
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1
>>>
>>> Dont use "disklabel -B -rw da$n auto". Use "disklabel -rw da$n auto".
>>
>> All my disks have boo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Alan Edmonds" writes:
: I'm not sure if the %i is a problem the kernel printf or
I didn't checkin the small patch to the kernel printf for %i support
yet. Ignore it for now.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current"
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alfred Perlstein writes:
: %i is because I lost a flamewar to get %i added to kernel printf,
: it has been fixed.
I was thinking of just committing the one line change and avoiding the
flamewar :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubs
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> > There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks.
> >
> > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1
> >
> > Dont use "disklabel -B -rw da$n auto". Use "disklabel -rw da$n auto".
>
> All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the
:This illegal geometry causes divide by zero errors in a handful of scsi
:bioses from Adaptec.
:
:This illegal geometry causes divide by zero errors in a handful of scsi
:bioses from NCR/Symbios.
:
:This is why it is called dangerous.
:
:Cheers,
:-Peter
:--
:Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC
> >architecture specification.
>
> Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
> mail for the reasons. For FreeBSD, it's obsolete s
Mark Murray wrote:
> Hi
>
> Now that I have your attention, please listen up, this may have some
> far-reaching consequences.
>
> We currently have 2 telnet sources in the src/ tree; src/crypto/telnet
> and the "base" telnet spread around in (src/*/*telnet*/).
>
> The "base" telnet is a complet
> On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 19:46:06 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Still, it's my opinion that these BIOSes are simply broken:
Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
situation is that this table is required, and we're going to put it there.
End of story.
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 18:32:38 -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
>> On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 19:46:06 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Still, it's my opinion that these BIOSes are simply broken:
>
> Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
> situation is that t
Greg Lehey wrote:
[ ... IBM DTLA drives ... ]
IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
electronics to keep up, and results in crap being written to disk.
This is not often a problem with windows, the FS
> Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> > Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC
> > >architecture specification.
> >
> > Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
> > mail for the reasons. For FreeBSD, it's o
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Now that I have your attention, please listen up, this may have some
> > far-reaching consequences.
> >
> > We currently have 2 telnet sources in the src/ tree; src/crypto/telnet
> > and the "base" telnet spread around in
Peter Wemm writes:
| I for one will miss it. I used libexec/telnetd extensively during ia64
| bootstrap (and still use it) before we had the crypto stuff going. This
| was all built by hand, 'make world' still isn't an option there. I also
| use usr.bin/telnet on other systems where SRA is cons
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 18:46:24 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> [ ... IBM DTLA drives ... ]
No, that wasn't me.
> IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
> that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
> electronics to k
Greg Lehey wrote:
> > [ ... IBM DTLA drives ... ]
>
> No, that wasn't me.
I didn't quote the full thing; that's what the brackets and ellipsis
was for.
> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
> > that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
Greg Lehey wrote:
[ ... DTLA drives ... ]
> > Do a Google/Tom's Hardware search to reassure yourself that I am not
> > smoking anything.
>
> I think I'd rather put the shoe on the other foot. This looks like
> high-grade crack. Who was smoking it?
For your further amusement, here is a pointe
On google search for:
deskstar 75gxp class action
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/22412.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,67608,00.asp
etc... So apparently my warning about these drives in 'man tuning' is
still appropriate :-)
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> On google search for:
>
> deskstar 75gxp class action
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/22412.html
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,67608,00.asp
>
> etc... So apparently my warning about these drives in '
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:00:19PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC
> >architecture specification.
>
> Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
> mail for the
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC
> >architecture specification.
>
> Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
> mail for the reasons. For FreeBSD, it's obsolete s
:> etc... So apparently my warning about these drives in 'man tuning' is
:> still appropriate :-)
:>
:> -Matt
:>
:> :> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
:> :> > that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of th
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> etc... So apparently my warning about these drives in 'man tuning' is
> :> still appropriate :-)
> :>
> :>-Matt
> :>
> :> :> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
> :> :> > that the sustained wri
It seems Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Yes there are two problems. The physical failure problem seems to
> be mostly restricted to the 75GXP. However the electronics/bandwidth/
> density/whatever-it-is problem is uniform across the entire DTLA line.
> We stopped using 75GXP's at work a while back, but
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 14:13:28
---
To whom it may concern: Are you looking to make money online?
If you're either looking for a jo
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 06:46:24PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> It's because you have to reinstall, should you want to add a second
> OS at a later date (e.g. Linux, or Windows).
I think it has more to do with the drive going on a new motherboard
that might not boot with dangerously dedicated t
"David W. Chapman Jr." wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 06:46:24PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > It's because you have to reinstall, should you want to add a second
> > OS at a later date (e.g. Linux, or Windows).
>
> I think it has more to do with the drive going on a new motherboard
> that mi
> > :> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
> > :> > that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
> > :> > electronics to keep up, and results in crap being written to disk.
>
>
> I would adssume it actually the tracks FURTHEREST from the spi
"David W. Chapman Jr." wrote:
> > > :> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
> > > :> > that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
> > > :> > electronics to keep up, and results in crap being written to disk.
> >
> >
> > I would adssume it a
"David W. Chapman Jr." wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 06:46:24PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > It's because you have to reinstall, should you want to add a second
> > OS at a later date (e.g. Linux, or Windows).
>
> I think it has more to do with the drive going on a new motherboard
> that m
+---[ David W. Chapman Jr. ]--
| > > :> > IBM DTLA drives are known to rotate fast enough near the spindle
| > > :> > that the sustained write speed exceeds the ability of the controller
| > > :> > electronics to keep up, and results in crap being written to disk.
| >
| >
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 22:44:52 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> 3) You get a system lockup when booting the *computer* if *any* DD disk
>is attached anywhere at all. This is what killed the Thinkpad T20*,
>A20*, 600X etc. After all the yelling we did at IBM, it turned out
>to be F
45 matches
Mail list logo
