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.
