Hello... I apologize in advance for abusing the mailing list, but you readers are experts in a friend''s problem. Here is the problem reported verbatim from a knowledgable reporter, and I wonder if any of you can shed any light as to what''s happening here:>> The problem appears to be that the DOS partition table is reporting a >> disk size larger than what BSD intuits when it boots. This causesBSD>> to truncate the size of one of the partitions. Then <theapplication>>> comes along, >> reads the DOS partition table and tries to match that up with whatBSD>> reports. Since the sizes for the 2nd partition don''t match, >> it declares >> that it doesn''t know what device to use to read the NTFS filesystem. >> >> The question is what to do about it. To do that I need to >> know why the >> DOS label reports a larger size. In the output above, the CHS of >> 4865x255x63=78156225 sectors, while if you add the start and size of >> partition 2 from the DOS label you get 80276805 sectors. The BIOS >> probably reports something in between, using 16 heads as its basis. >>This has to do with a fellow Frisbee user-- he seems to have this problem on all of his machines, but I encountered it on none of mine. Any light you could shed about DOS partition tables and BSD partition tables would be welcome. Again, I hope this OT message wasn''t too offensive. -Chris
Hello... I apologize in advance for abusing the mailing list, but you readers are experts in a friend's problem. Here is the problem reported verbatim from a knowledgable reporter, and I wonder if any of you can shed any light as to what's happening here:>> The problem appears to be that the DOS partition table is reporting a >> disk size larger than what BSD intuits when it boots. This causesBSD>> to truncate the size of one of the partitions. Then <theapplication>>> comes along, >> reads the DOS partition table and tries to match that up with whatBSD>> reports. Since the sizes for the 2nd partition don't match, >> it declares >> that it doesn't know what device to use to read the NTFS filesystem. >> >> The question is what to do about it. To do that I need to >> know why the >> DOS label reports a larger size. In the output above, the CHS of >> 4865x255x63=78156225 sectors, while if you add the start and size of >> partition 2 from the DOS label you get 80276805 sectors. The BIOS >> probably reports something in between, using 16 heads as its basis. >>This has to do with a fellow Frisbee user-- he seems to have this problem on all of his machines, but I encountered it on none of mine. Any light you could shed about DOS partition tables and BSD partition tables would be welcome. Again, I hope this OT message wasn't too offensive. -Chris
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Is there something wrong with R version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25) -- "Frisbee Sailing"?
- problem with ldpaths
- R string comparisons may vary with platform (plain text)
- Context: launching FreeBSD "pxeboot" from PXELINUX is the Very L ast Bug.
- syslinux and btrfs-formatted dos/MBR partition