On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:18:04 +1030 Malcolm Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:43, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:29:14 +1030 > > > > Malcolm Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:20, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > > > Hope someone will have the pacince to read all this ... > > > > [..] > > > Cylinder and head numbering starts at 0; sectors start at 1. A quirk > > > of history that you need to know when using CHS. > > > > I don't think I understand. > > Suppose you had 4 heads; these would be identified as head numbers 0, 1, 2 > and 3. > > Now suppose you have 4 sectors(per track); these would be identified as > sector numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. > > Do you now see the contrast referred to? Tnx, now I get it. > > > > Q5: Why the new parameters are different from those of sysinstall ? > > > > > > Possibly a change of assumed CHS geometry > > > > I don't understand this. As I didn't changed anything. > > > > I understand that what the system sees as the geometry can be influenced > by the parameters set in the MBR; but I would expect that once the MBR content > is fixed that the that the system will always see the same geometry for the > disk. Please note that this is what I understand -- not what I know to be so > ;) > > I find it surprising that an MBR generated by sysinstall would exhibit this > head inconsistency. I've certainly not observed this here. Well, I can assure is was made by sysinstall. > On this machine I have one 60G and two 20G IDE drives all configured by > sysinstall. Fdisk reports geometry nnnnn/255/63 on two of the drives(the 60G > and one of the 20G) and nnnnn/16/63 on the other. Interesting. > But in each case the head > numbers in the slice/partition table are consistent with the reported > geometry. [..] > > > > Q6: Is this schema OK and will I be able to use this disk in an > > > > other computer and access all the partitions and slices ? > > > > > > Probably but I would feel happier with sysinstall generated values. > > > > The reason I've posted this is that I've lost about 50G of date after an > > MB crash as on the new MB I've got fsck -> CAN NOT FIND SUPERBLOCK for > > other slices that / and I don't end-up to repeat that again (and it was > > done with sysinstall). > > > > MB? Moterboard. the firts was with an VIA8235 south-bridge, the second had an 8237 and everything was OK, after I've changed this one with another also with an 8237 the problem showed its had. > A corrupt or improper BSD disklabel, or trying to access a ufs2 file system > (FBSD 5.x) as ufs sounds more likely than fdisk problems. 5.1R so UFS2; and it was shut-down properly between changing the motherbords. > But make sure your slices (under fdisk) don't overlap. Thanks. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"