Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some systems like Windows have trouble with this approach, what trouble? Windows doesn't probably see anything. anyway i would not risk running windows with FreeBSD containing disk connected at the same time anyway. it's always risky. To OP: If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make bsdlabel -B device is just enough after that ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Ah the FAQ http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED I don't think it's dangerous either. Thanks for your explanations. While it's far simpler. Anyway i wasn't aware it's called that way as i don't use installer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. because? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Is there any performance advantage to using a dedicated disk layout no. it is simplicity adventage, as well as (for SSD and 4K sector disks) far easier to put partitions aligned. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:16:33 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote: Ah the FAQ http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED I don't think it's dangerous either. Thanks for your explanations. While it's far simpler. Anyway i wasn't aware it's called that way as i don't use installer As far as I know, the installer dropped dedicated mode some time ago. So if you intendedly want to use it, you need to bypass the installer and do the few simple steps using the CLI. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:15:44 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote: it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some systems like Windows have trouble with this approach, what trouble? Windows doesn't probably see anything. I have _no_ idea. Systems behaving in a manner you cannot expect or predict are hard to tell in what they could do wrong on a non-standard setting (from their point of view of course). anyway i would not risk running windows with FreeBSD containing disk connected at the same time anyway. it's always risky. It maybe suggests to repair it... :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
While it's far simpler. Anyway i wasn't aware it's called that way as i don't use installer As far as I know, the installer dropped dedicated mode some time ago. So if you intendedly want to use it, you need to bypass the installer and do the few simple steps using the CLI. i already do this, by not starting it at all. bootable pendrive with complete system is all i need. nothing more than bsdlabel newfs and COPY is needed ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml That is EXTREMELY old advice. completely irrevelant now. Why so many people blindly repeat some rules without understanding it. Even years after that rule no longer matters. The other example is creating lots of partitions. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
environment. gpart(8) can create MBR slice/partition layouts (and GPT and other partition schemes). See the man page. There is little reason to use fdisk and bsdlabel any more. i use only disklabel, no fdisk at all. i put partition start sector where i want - no align problems. I did not use gpart for now in production as i have no 2TB disk where i want to do partition at all. Actually i've got quite a few 3TB disks recently but there are no both gpart, fdisk or disklabels on them, just single full disk(*) filesystem for user data. * - actually gmirror of 3 disks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? yes. 63 is normal. Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 7/6/2012 11:43 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? yes. 63 is normal. Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Ryan Coleman writes: Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote: Ryan Coleman writes: Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use dangerously dedicated disks Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Coleman edi...@d3photography.com wrote: Sector 64 is sector 63 when you start at 0. OMG, so right...I cannot believe that went over my head! Thanks for pointing it out. It lets me know that diskPartitionEditor is automatically selecting start and end sectors at boundaries. Thanks! -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? wrong. i said slices (==DOS/Windoze MBR partitions), not disklabel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use dangerously dedicated disks Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a you use GUID partition table. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:47:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote: On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote: Ryan Coleman writes: Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use dangerously dedicated disks First of all, it's dedicated disks, there's nothing dangerous related. :-) If you are using the MBR approach (old way), you can do either creating a DOS primary partition, a slice, which then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b and so on. When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the bare disk, you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some systems like Windows have trouble with this approach, but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on. If you are using the GPT approach (new way), you create partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1, ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't DOS primary partitions anymore, outdated systems may not properly recognize them. If you label your partitions (you can do that with both approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at all. Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a Correct, this relation can be constructed. To OP: If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question at all. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 08:25 PM, Polytropon wrote: On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:47:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote: On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote: Ryan Coleman writes: Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use dangerously dedicated disks First of all, it's dedicated disks, there's nothing dangerous related. :-) Hi Polytropon I got this from the docs somewhere, let me search Ah the FAQ http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED I don't think it's dangerous either. Thanks for your explanations. If you are using the MBR approach (old way), you can do either creating a DOS primary partition, a slice, which then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b and so on. When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the bare disk, you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some systems like Windows have trouble with this approach, but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on. If you are using the GPT approach (new way), you create partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1, ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't DOS primary partitions anymore, outdated systems may not properly recognize them. If you label your partitions (you can do that with both approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at all. Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a Correct, this relation can be constructed. To OP: If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question at all. Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
[snip] I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use dangerously dedicated disks First of all, it's dedicated disks, there's nothing dangerous related. :-) If you are using the MBR approach (old way), you can do either creating a DOS primary partition, a slice, which then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b and so on. When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the bare disk, you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some systems like Windows have trouble with this approach, but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on. If you are using the GPT approach (new way), you create partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1, ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't DOS primary partitions anymore, outdated systems may not properly recognize them. If you label your partitions (you can do that with both approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at all. Thanks for this explanation. Is there any performance advantage to using a dedicated disk layout over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within it? [snip] To OP: If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question at all. Thanks again for the concise explanation. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 6 July 2012 11:44, Rick Miller vmil...@hostileadmin.com wrote: Thanks for this explanation. Is there any performance advantage to using a dedicated disk layout over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within it? Slices isn't the old way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:58:03 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: On 6 July 2012 11:44, Rick Miller vmil...@hostileadmin.com wrote: Thanks for this explanation. Is there any performance advantage to using a dedicated disk layout over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within it? Slices isn't the old way. Compared to the new and modern GPT, it is. :-) However, if you keep using the old way, it will still be supported and will not confuse either BIOSes or other systems that are maybe installed on your machine. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. I'm also not aware of any performance issues. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml According to the article, there are some BIOSes that don't seem to like disks not containing a DOS primary partition to start their boot chain. While this may be true, I have never experienced it. For maximum security, you can use the old approach of using fdisk + disklabel (creating slice, creating partitions within slice). This also delivers most compatibility for other systems, if it should be needed, e. g. in a multiboot environment. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: Slices isn't the old way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml That is EXTREMELY old advice. The general advice, for this and many other things, is - don't do it, but if you do it, know what you're doing. ;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 09:06 PM, Michael Sierchio wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: Slices isn't the old way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml That is EXTREMELY old advice. The general advice, for this and many other things, is - don't do it, but if you do it, know what you're doing. ;-) agree, advice: don't use dedicated disks, it might be dangerous if another fdisk silently modifies your disk or the BIOS does not understand it. It's still in the FAQ though :) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
I went through this exercise to determine if there were boundary issues installing FreeBSD on disks. I concluded that FreeBSD was indeed installing at head boundaries. A colleague then pointed me to http://ivoras.net/blog/tree/2011-01-01.freebsd-on-4k-sector-drives.html which calls into question whether sysinstall and fdisk really are installing FreeBSD's slice at the 64th cylinder. Should I be concerned with this? This came about due to a scenario where Linux would start its filesystem at sector 63, right before the head boundary. On I/O intensive applications, it was common for reads/write to cross the head boundary resulting in unnecessary disk thrashing and long I/O wait times. The issue was corrected in Linux by changing the start cylinder to 2048. Some theorized that FreeBSD was vulnerable to this scenario. Thoughts/feedback? On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Rick Miller vmil...@hostileadmin.com wrote: Hi All, Installing FreeBSD 8.x I select A at the fdisk partition editor to use the entire disk. It creates an unused slice with offset 0 and 63 sectors in size. Then partition 1 starts at sector 63 and utilizes the remaining disk space. Does sysinstall's diskPartitonEditor macro automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? -- Take care Rick Miller -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, Polytropon wrote: For maximum security, you can use the old approach of using fdisk + disklabel (creating slice, creating partitions within slice). This also delivers most compatibility for other systems, if it should be needed, e. g. in a multiboot environment. gpart(8) can create MBR slice/partition layouts (and GPT and other partition schemes). See the man page. There is little reason to use fdisk and bsdlabel any more. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
