NOTE: I apologize to Mark Linimon he will get this message twice, I accidentally hit 'reply' instead of 'reply all' Here is the comedy, I just realized... This box is FreeBSD desktop1.yuno 7.2-RELEASE-p3 not 8-BETA2 I have to many desktops got a little confused between them. Incidentally the BETA2 box shows the exact same results ill get the gpart information as soon as I can. On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:01:05 -0000, Robert Noland <rnoland_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 18:46 +0100, Alexander Best wrote: >> Paul G Webster schrieb am 2009-11-03: >> > As an example, this is a 1GB fat32 disk. >> >> >> > da0 at umass-sim0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0 >> > da0: <LG USB Drive 1100> Removable Direct Access SCSI-0 device >> > da0: 1.000MB/s transfers >> > da0: 956MB (1957888 512 byte sectors: 64H 32S/T 956C) >> > desktop1# ls /dev | grep da0~ >> > desktop1# ls /dev | grep da0 >> > da0 >> > desktop1# fdisk /dev/da0 >> > ******* Working on device /dev/da0 ******* >> > parameters extracted from in-core disklabel are: >> > cylinders=956 heads=64 sectors/track=32 (2048 blks/cyl) >> >> > parameters to be used for BIOS calculations are: >> > cylinders=956 heads=64 sectors/track=32 (2048 blks/cyl) >> >> > Media sector size is 512 >> > Warning: BIOS sector numbering starts with sector 1 >> > Information from DOS bootblock is: >> > The data for partition 1 is: >> > sysid 114 (0x72),(unknown) >> > start 778135908, size 1141509631 (557377 Meg), flag 6f >> > beg: cyl 357/ head 116/ sector 40; >> > end: cyl 357/ head 32/ sector 45 >> > The data for partition 2 is: >> > sysid 101 (0x65),(Novell Netware/386 3.xx) >> > start 168689522, size 1936028240 (945326 Meg), flag 69 >> > beg: cyl 288/ head 115/ sector 43; >> > end: cyl 367/ head 114/ sector 50 >> > The data for partition 3 is: >> > sysid 121 (0x79),(QNX4.x 3rd part) >> > start 1869881465, size 1936028192 (945326 Meg), flag 73 >> > beg: cyl 366/ head 32/ sector 33; >> > end: cyl 357/ head 32/ sector 43 >> > The data for partition 4 is: >> > sysid 13 (0x0d),(unknown) >> > start 0, size 3637226496 (1775989 Meg), flag 74 >> > beg: cyl 372/ head 97/ sector 50; >> > end: cyl 0/ head 10/ sector 0 >> > desktop1# >> >> *lol* just tried this myself and my fdisk output looks just as bad as >> yours: >> >> ******* Working on device da0 ******* >> parameters extracted from in-core disklabel are: >> cylinders=242 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) >> >> parameters to be used for BIOS calculations are: >> cylinders=242 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) >> >> Media sector size is 512 >> Warning: BIOS sector numbering starts with sector 1 >> Information from DOS bootblock is: >> The data for partition 1 is: >> sysid 110 (0x6e),(unknown) >> start 1768187213, size 1701211749 (830669 Meg), flag 65 >> beg: cyl 357/ head 114/ sector 46; >> end: cyl 10/ head 255/ sector 13 >> The data for partition 2 is: >> sysid 255 (0xff),(Xenix bad blocks table) >> start 1953723749, size 980709985 (478862 Meg), flag 68 >> beg: cyl 370/ head 108/ sector 37; >> end: cyl 78/ head 13/ sector 10 >> The data for partition 3 is: >> sysid 116 (0x74),(unknown) >> start 1801683314, size 168652389 (82349 Meg), flag 20 >> beg: cyl 371/ head 84/ sector 33; >> end: cyl 100/ head 101/ sector 32 >> The data for partition 4 is: >> sysid 0 (0000),(unused) >> start 2885681152, size 54212 (26 Meg), flag 0 >> beg: cyl 0/ head 0/ sector 0; >> end: cyl 0/ head 0/ sector 0 >> >> `file -s /dev/da0` reports: >> >> /dev/da0: x86 boot sector, Microsoft Windows XP Bootloader (4.german) >> NTLDR, >> code offset 0x58, OEM-ID "MSDOS5.0", sectors/cluster 8, reserved >> sectors 38, >> Media descriptor 0xf8, heads 255, sectors 3903487 (volumes > 32 MB) , >> FAT (32 >> bit), sectors/FAT 3805, serial number 0x88e88370, unlabeled >> >> `fdisk` in general seems to need some updates. this is the output if i >> call >> `fdisk` without any args: > > The important question is what does "gpart show" say about these > disks.... > > robert. > >> fdisk: mounted root fs resource doesn't match expectations (regexec >> returned >> 1) >> >> alex >> >> > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:28:10 -0000, Mark Linimon >> > <linimon_at_lonesome.com> wrote: >> >> > >On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 02:03:29AM +0100, Alexander Best wrote: >> > >>i guess the freebsd-fs_at_ guys know about these problems but don't >> > >>have >> > >>the time to deal with it. most of them are probably working on >> > >>zfs. >> >> > >AFAIK there are only a handful of people working on ZFS. >> >> > >We certainly need more people willing to work on filesystems code. >> > >In >> > >general it does have a large learning curve, so it's not as >> > >attractive >> > >as some of the other areas. That's probably why, as the kernel has >> > >undergone radical changes (e.g. for SMP) over time, that some of the >> > >fs code has not kept up. >> >> > >mcl >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >> > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> > >"freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >> >> >> >> > -- >> > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/Received on Tue Nov 03 2009 - 18:02:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:57 UTC