>>>It differs in that you can boot from the disk afterwards with my script,
>>>you cant with disklabel -w wd0 auto.
>
>>That may be because you forgot to supply the -r or -B args to disklabel,
>>[...]
>
>No it is because the fool BIOS belives the 5 in the MBR.
This problem can be avoided by u
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>>>: It seems that our new boot blocks doesn't like the taste of disks
>>>: prepared according to the meagre information we have in the handbook.
>>>
>>>How does this script differ from 'disklabel -w wd0 auto'? It does do
>>>the fdisk stuff (you
>>: It seems that our new boot blocks doesn't like the taste of disks
>>: prepared according to the meagre information we have in the handbook.
>>
>>How does this script differ from 'disklabel -w wd0 auto'? It does do
>>the fdisk stuff (your script, not the disklabel command).
>
>It differs in th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>: It seems that our new boot blocks doesn't like the taste of disks
>: prepared according to the meagre information we have in the handbook.
>
>How does this script differ from 'disklabel
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: It seems that our new boot blocks doesn't like the taste of disks
: prepared according to the meagre information we have in the handbook.
How does this script differ from 'disklabel -w wd0 auto'? It does do
the fdisk stuff (your script,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: My real beef here is not with the boot failure but with the fact that our
: command line tools stink when I bring in a new blank disk...
Yes. Several times I've hit this problem, but have never been PO'd
enough to fix it...
Warner
To
>> very dangerously dedicated:= dangerously dedicated with the DOSpartition
>> table and/or boot signature zeroed or otherwise clobbered.
>> undangerously dedicated:= dangerously dedicated with the DOSpartition table
>> fixed to cover the whole disk (including the MBR). This is very easy
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>> My semantics may be wrong on these two: what I'm talking about is
> >>> what is in handbook chapter 8 "Using command line utilities " gives
> >>> you a disk which doesn't boot.
> >>
> >>Ok; of those two examples, the first should give you a truly dedic
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >>
> >> >All of the above only work for the easy case where the whole disk is
> >> >being labelled. In general, the disk size must be redu
>>> My semantics may be wrong on these two: what I'm talking about is
>>> what is in handbook chapter 8 "Using command line utilities " gives
>>> you a disk which doesn't boot.
>>
>>Ok; of those two examples, the first should give you a truly dedicated
>>disk. (You can only generate a "dangerous
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Nordier writes:
>> >What fails? Can you be more specific? How recent are your boot1/boot2
>> >blocks? I would be inclined to dd at least 8k over the front of the
>> >disk myself, but I don't think that's relevant in your case.
>>
>> Disk error #1 while
> >What fails? Can you be more specific? How recent are your boot1/boot2
> >blocks? I would be inclined to dd at least 8k over the front of the
> >disk myself, but I don't think that's relevant in your case.
>
> Disk error #1 while trying to load boot/loader. I think the bios
> in this case
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>> My semantics may be wrong on these two: what I'm talking about is
>> what is in handbook chapter 8 "Using command line utilities " gives
>> you a disk which doesn't boot.
>
>Ok; of those two examples, the first should give you a truly dedicate
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >>
> >> >All of the above only work for the easy case where the whole disk is
> >> >being labelled. In general, the disk size must be reduced to the slice
> >> >size before applying a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>>
>> >All of the above only work for the easy case where the whole disk is
>> >being labelled. In general, the disk size must be reduced to the slice
>> >size before applying a label to a s
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>
> >All of the above only work for the easy case where the whole disk is
> >being labelled. In general, the disk size must be reduced to the slice
> >size before applying a label to a slice.
>
> And that is the problem, it seems that "dange
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>All of the above only work for the easy case where the whole disk is
>being labelled. In general, the disk size must be reduced to the slice
>size before applying a label to a slice.
And that is the problem, it seems that "dangerously dedicat
>It seems that our new boot blocks doesn't like the taste of disks
>prepared according to the meagre information we have in the handbook.
>
>The following script seems to DTRT for me, and should really be
>either integrated into a "fdisk -A" flag or maybe as a stand alone
>script. Either way: man
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nik Clayton writes:
>On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 04:19:52PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> The following script seems to DTRT for me, and should really be
>> either integrated into a "fdisk -A" flag or maybe as a stand alone
>> script. Either way: manpage & handboo
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 04:19:52PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The following script seems to DTRT for me, and should really be
> either integrated into a "fdisk -A" flag or maybe as a stand alone
> script. Either way: manpage & handbook needs updated too.
What, specifically, is wrong with
20 matches
Mail list logo
