Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!news.uni-c.dk!tkemi.klb.dth.dk!jjw From: jjw@tkemi.klb.dth.dk (Joachim Wlodarz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: New disklabel not working? 256 heads????? Date: 20 Sep 1994 09:54:10 GMT Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education. Lines: 38 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35mbg2$ro1@news.uni-c.dk> References: <GILBERT.94Sep19150356@hydra1c.cs.utk.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tkemi.klb.dth.dk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Steve Gilbert (gilbert@cs.utk.edu) wrote: : Hi. I'm using FreeBSD 1.1.5-R, and I just bought : a new Connor IDE disk to daisy-chain with my other one. : I got the disklabel and eveything done fine. The disk : is partitioned correctly and all the filesystems are there : and accessible. There's just one funny thing. I get this : error at boot time: : wd1: can't handle 256 heads from partition table (controller value 16 restored) : ...what could be causing this? The disk has 16 heads, so the "controller : value" is correct and everything works fine. Why would it be initially : looking for 256 heads? No disk on the planet has 256 heads. I've : checked everything I can imagine.../etc/disktab...output from "disklabel"... : the BIOS settings...nothing ever mentions the number 256 in relation : to anything. Does anyone have any ideas? Any help would be greatly : appreciated. : -- : Steve Gilbert Internet: gilbert@cs.utk.edu : Backups, Department of Computer Science : University of Tennessee, Knoxville I think that your partition table was overwritten by disklabel. There are two possibilities of getting rid of this message: 1) run fdisk on wd1, update what needed (you may see very strange figures here...). This could be dangerous ! 2) repartition wd1 from scratch, including 1 cyl. offset for the BSD partition. The first method was succesful in my case, but I've tried that on an empty drive :). I think that the second method is the right one, according to the standard PC partitioning scheme. Regards, -jjw.