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 any
$B$"$C$?$+$$29$b$j;}$C$F$^$9$+!)(B
$B4($$?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
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
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
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 may
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
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$n auto.
All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the
bootblocks are DD mode. I don't
(The other day a coworker of mine wanted to use DD for some IBM DTLA
disks, because he'd heard that the disks performed better that way -
something to do with scatter-gather not working right unless you used
DD. I'm highly skeptical about this since I have my own measurements
from IBM DTLA
I have a question about Freebsd driver. If we want to support some
options in driver(like speed and duplex mode setting) , user can use this
option to change driver configurations. I am not sure whether freebsd
driver support driver parameter or something else. Can you give me some
Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The MBR partition table is not obsolete, it's a part of the PC
architecture specification.
Its design is antique. Or rather: it's missing a design. See other
mail for the reasons. For FreeBSD, it's obsolete since we don't need
to rely on fdisk
Hi
Now that I have your attention, please listen up, this may have some
far-reaching consequences.
We currently have 2 telnet sources in the src/ tree; src/crypto/telnet
and the base telnet spread around in (src/*/*telnet*/).
The base telnet is a complete subset of src/crypto telnet, and as
a
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 22:52:58 +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 09-Dec-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(The other day a coworker of mine wanted to use DD for some IBM DTLA
disks, because he'd heard that the disks performed better that way -
something to do with scatter-gather not
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 12:15:19 -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
As Peter Wemm wrote:
There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1
Dont use disklabel -B -rw da$n auto. Use disklabel -rw da$n auto.
All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot
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
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
bootblocks are
: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];
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 since we
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 complete subset of
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 19:46:06 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
personal opinion
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
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:
personal opinion
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
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
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 since we
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
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 keep
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 pointer to
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 'man
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 reasons.
: 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 the
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 write speed exceeds
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 we
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
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
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 might not
: 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 spindle..
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 actually the tracks
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 might not
+---[ 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.
|
|
| I would
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
