Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!tfs.com!tfs.com!julian From: julian@tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Subject: Re: partition table help? Message-ID: <1992Oct15.012916.7526@tfs.com> Organization: TRW Financial Systems References: <1992Oct14.070315.23390@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:29:16 GMT Lines: 59 In article <1992Oct14.070315.23390@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> paoletti@cps.msu.edu (David R. Paoletti) writes: > >I'm already using 331 cyls for MS-DOS. I'd like to have a >32M root (is this size OK for most things?), 32M swap, and >the remainder of my disk (692 - 64 = 628 cyls) for /usr. > >Now I know that 386BSD's partition a is /, b is swap, and >c is /usr. What about the h partition that appears in most of > the initial disktab entries? Do I have to define partition d at all? No partition h is user. take a closer look at eh other disktabs partition c is "the whole unix space" by tradition, and you should not try put a file system on it. > >Here's my disktab so far: > >fj2266|Fujitsu 2266S: \ > :ty=winchester:dt=SCSI:se#512:nt#64:ns#32:nc#1023:rm#3600:\ > :pa#65536:oa#677888:ba#4096:fa#512:ta=4.2BSD: \ > :pb#65536:ob#743424:tb=swap: \ :pc#1417216:oc#808960: \ :pd#2095104:od#0: \ > :ph#1286144:oh#808960:bh#4096:fh#512:th=4.2BSD: > >Does anyone see any problems with this? I know that it may >take a minute or two to check the math, but any errors? > >Thanks, > Dave Paoletti :) > also: 1/ 32MB for root is too big the ideal root file system is hardly ever writtnhen to so that it is unlikely to be corrupted. it should contain only a small booting subset of unix. 2/ d need not be explicitly given, but that's what it will do so one might as well put it in to save confusion. 3/ you are using the adaptec's TRANSLATED geometry. in that manner it is imposssible to express any thing bigger than what you have shown.. if you use the REAL (or approximatly so) figures you can get a truer feel for things. 386bsd can use real figures.. believe me your drive does not have 63 heads as you suggest. (it may even be bigger.. you may find that you have more than that available but DOS just couldn't express it in any way). (I don't know that drive so I don't know for sure). julian