Glendon Gross:
>Is there anyone interested in rewriting that "fake" partition table,
Please look at the thread with the same topic three weeks ago.
I stated that it wouldn't be possible because there is a fundamental
disagreement:
BIOS standard demands that the first *sector* always remains res
Is there anyone interested in rewriting that "fake" partition table,
or is that requirement satisfied by the non-dedicated format?
I actually like sysinstall, now that I am used to it, but it
would be aesthetically more pleasing to be able to use the
dedicated format. I am curious if there coul
On Friday, 15 December 2000 at 2:20:40 -0500, Mike Nowlin wrote:
>
>> Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
>> don't recognize the dedicated format?
>
> There are times when the politically-correct of the world use the term
> "proprietary" when they actually mean
> Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
> don't recognize the dedicated format?
There are times when the politically-correct of the world use the term
"proprietary" when they actually mean "dumb" or "really badly
designed". But yes, that's what it means... :)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
writes:
: Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
: don't recognize the dedicated format?
One could say that, however the fake disk label for dedicated disks is
a problem. The BIOS shouldn't know about partitions, but m
Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
don't recognize the dedicated format?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
>writes:
> : Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
> : around a pr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
writes:
: Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
: around a problem that results from nonstandard BIOS routines.
Not so much non-standard bios routines, but rather from BIOSes that
know too much about what Should Be Th
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
around a problem that results from nonstandard BIOS routines.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
> : > No it isn't bogus. You can't boot off a DD disk on some machin
> > > > > o The FreeBSD fake DOS partition table does not pass a
> > > > > number BIOS-based self-consistency checks (it needs to
> ...
> > > again, 30 seconds in fdisk fixes this
>
> > I don't agree with this one. There is a checksum that is not
> > valid against the FreeBSD created p
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 06:43:33AM +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> can someone remember me the problem w/ DD ?
Geez, we've just had a 30 message thread that stated many times the
problem with dang.ded. drives.
> well, I don't have tested anything since I don't have any free drive to burn,
> but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Has it occured to you that perhaps there are people that really, really
> want DD?
can someone remember me the problem w/ DD ? I guess that DD a drive is not
a problem if done w/in the state of the art (or something like that).
- what about to fdisk the destination d
On 20 Nov, Mike Smith wrote:
>> Let me state this one more time loudly for those calling themselves boot
>> code experts. THE PARTITION TABLE IN THE MBR IS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE BIOS,
>> BIOSES THAT TRY TO MAKE HEADS OR TALES OF PARTITION TABLES ARE TECHNICALLY
>> BROKEN AND VIOLATE IBM AT COMP
On 20 Nov, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> As I recall, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> The original IBM AT spec could give a rats ass about a partition
>> table, all that it cares about is the boot block signature (magic
>> 0xAA55). It is the MBR that knows what a partition table is and how
>> to deal with
Chad R. Larson:
>I think earlier in this thread was a reference to a document somewhat
>later than the BIOS code shipped with an AT.
Which probably makes some sense as FreeBSD won't run on a plain IBM AT
box anyway...
>Do we want to start a new thread on what exactly =is= the authoritative
>docu
Hi Chad,
good summary. Only one remark and two additions:
> To summarize the summary: The problem comes from the fact that a
> PC-BIOS is permitted to insist on an MBR on each drive, and that the
> slices in that MBR align on certain boundries whereas FreeBSD
> doesn't care about such sillyness
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandon Fosdick writes:
> : Using what I consider to be a artifact of another operating system
> : on a machine that doesn't use that OS seems silly to me. Unless, of
> : course, that artifact has some useful feature(s) or
> : functionality. If it does, I'm all ear
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandon Fosdick writes:
> : So we're going to be stuck with MS style partitions on machines that only run
> : FreeBSD? I don't like this idea.
>
> First, these aren't MS style partitions. They are part of the PC
> spec. FreeBSD is lying to the BIOS with the MBR
On 19-Nov-00 Brandon Fosdick wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:32:16PM -0500, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
>> > So we're going to be stuck with MS style partitions on machines that only
>> > run
>> > FreeBSD? I don't like this idea.
>>
>> Can you tell why?? Just because
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith
writes:
> > As the PC architecture requires, just use an fdisk partition rather
> > than a disklabel slice (slices are what UNIX vendors call them). For
> > that matter I'd be happy if we removed disklabel from the picture
> > entirely. I think that
Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> If it shows valid partitions, you're using a Microsoft partition table.
> > ^
> As the PC architecture requires, just use an fdisk partition rather
> than a disklabel slice (slices are what UNIX vendors call them). For
> that matter I'd be happy if we removed disklabel from the picture
> entirely. I think that should be our goal. The architecture requires
> an fdisk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh
writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Zero Sum writes:
> : Does this allow multiple partitions on a zip?
>
> Yes, but fdisk is awkward to use for editing.
How about fdisk -e in similar vein as disklabel -e?
As the PC architecture requires, just us
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Lehey writes:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> If it shows valid partitions, you're using a Microsoft partition table.
> >
unctionality. If it does, I'm
> > > > all ears.
> > >
> > > What "you consider" doesn't have much bearing on the situation. As for
> > > useful functionality, this has been done to death. It should be enough
> > > for you t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
: I wonder how long the current Microsoft partition table has to live,
: anyway? Sooner or later people are going to have to move to LBA
: addressing, or disks will get so big that the partition table can't
: address them. Then, hopefully, we'll
On 20-Nov-00 Greg Lehey wrote:
> OK, the more this thread continues, the more it's looking as if we're
> talking about different things. I don't have (much) of an objection
> to removing it from sysinstall. If that's all we're talking about, I
> don't have any further objections. But I sti
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 17:50:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel O'Connor" writes:
>> At least remove the option from sysinstall so new users don't get
>> stuck with it.
>
> I strongly support this. It has burned me on several machines.
>
> I don't think
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 17:48:14 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
>> They waste space. In most cases, they're not needed. Isn't that
>> enough?
>
> No. Writing in 'C' isn't necesary and wastes space. That, in and of
> itself, isn't a reason t
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 18:50:40 -0600, Jim King wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>>> Why is DD ever _needed_?
>>
>> Because Microsoft partition tables waste space.
>
> That's a really weak argument, given the price and size of drives
> nowadays.
It's a matter of principle. Why waste?
Greg
-
Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Why is DD ever _needed_?
>
> Because Microsoft partition tables waste space.
That's a really weak argument, given the price and size of drives nowadays.
Jim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel O'Connor" writes:
: At least remove the option from sysinstall so new users don't get
: stuck with it.
I strongly support this. It has burned me on several machines.
I don't think that anyone will remove it from the kernel...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
: They waste space. In most cases, they're not needed. Isn't that
: enough?
No. Writing in 'C' isn't necesary and wastes space. That, in and of
itself, isn't a reason to not use it.
But like mike said, it was the ability to create these for t
Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien"
> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 01:55:29PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
> > > Yesterday I installed the 4.2 RC1 in dangerously dedicated
> > &g
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien"
writes:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 01:55:29PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
> > Yesterday I installed the 4.2 RC1 in dangerously dedicated
> > mode on a SCSI disk I had lying around.
>
> Why did yo
is normal, having one at the start of a PC disk requires ugly
> hacks that break the PC arch, hence the difference.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying there are potential
problems with a "dangerously dedicated" HDD on a PC?
I don't use Micros~1 products on any of
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, R Joseph Wright wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 03:29:08PM -0600, Fred Clift wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > > the geometry of a disk. At the very least, dangerously dedicated mode
> > > should specify a valid
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> So, I think leaving things the way they have been (letting the
> administrator decide at installation time) with regard to
> "dangerously dedicated" is the way to go. Perhaps with a little
> more verbose warning about "don
As I recall, John Baldwin wrote:
>> Folks, gemoetries are for brain damaged PC operating systems.
>> All the box needs to boot is a proper MBR. BIOSes that
>> don't boot from a dedicated disk are _broken_.
>
> No, they are actually smart in that they attempt to use a geometry
> that matches the M
t in that they attempt to use a geometry that
> > matches the MBR so that you can move disks around. As a result, when we
> > try to fake it, it confuses them.
>
> Hmmm. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I've been using
> "dangerously dedicated" disks ex
BIOS, for which this is true. May be, I'm just lucky...
You are lucky. Try some Siemens crap with their Phoenix BIOS.
They simply say "Read error" if you wanted to use dangerously
dedicated mode. I have been bitten by this a lot of times. Normally,
I don't use Siemens ma
confuses them.
Hmmm. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I've been using
"dangerously dedicated" disks exclusively for the last few years, because
it was supposed to insulate me from the silliness of BIOS geometry
translation. By insulate, I mean that a disk formatted on o
Thomas Stromberg once stated:
=> > As for geometry, I tried both with and without "dangerously
=> > dedicated." My understanding was that if I used the dos partition
=> > entry method that we should be able to pick up the geometry
=> > correc
"Brandon D. Valentine" wrote:
>
> On i386 machines this is usually something lame like:
> NO ROM BASIC
> SYSTEM HALTED
> despite the fact that no machine has included a ROM BASIC since the last
> of the IBM PS/2 386s came out. However most of the BIOSes until *very*
> recently still contained co
At 06:30 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
>I guess I don't see how to use, eg, da0a without being "dangerously
>dedicated". When I did my install of FBSD 3.3, the partitioning
>process asked if I was sharing the disk or not. I said no, so it took
>over the entir
Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that using da0a is stupid. I said using dangerously
> > dedicated mode is stupid. Based on the number of times I've shot
> > myself in the foot trying to use dangaerously dedicated devices ov
> > "MS" == Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MS> Regardless of what you think, the only correct way to divvy up a disk on
> MS> a PC is to start with an MBR and work down from there. There is no other
> MS> way to do this properly, and to think otherwise merely demonstrates your
> "MS" == Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> Regardless of what you think, the only correct way to divvy up a disk on
MS> a PC is to start with an MBR and work down from there. There is no other
MS> way to do this properly, and to think otherwise merely demonstrates your
MS> ignor
>
> Why is using /dev/da0a stupid? FreeBSD is the only system I've
> encountered that totally locks up (during a 3.3-RELEASE install from
> CD) when there is no fdisk disk label. Is that why it is stupid?
You can't boot from a disk that doesn't have an MBR on it. This is a
feature of the PC
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone want to know what might - or might not - have been broken by
> this?
A description of your actual problem might come in handy.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freeb
49 matches
Mail list logo
