Re: Looks like the arm 20220805 snapshots are still odd, so probably kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 was still in use
- Reply: Dr. Rolf Jansen: "Re: Looks like the arm 20220805 snapshots are still odd, so probably kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 was still in use"
- In reply to: Mark Millard : "Re: Looks like the arm 20220805 snapshots are still odd, so probably kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 was still in use"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2022 22:51:35 UTC
> Am 07.08.2022 um 19:16 schrieb Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>: > >> On 2022-Aug-7, at 14:51, Dr. Rolf Jansen <freebsd-rj@cyclaero.com> wrote: >> >>> Am 07.08.2022 um 16:50 schrieb Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>: >>> >>> On 2022-Aug-7, at 12:32, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Correct, it was set to “0” for these builds. >>>> >>>> I honestly do not have any idea where the problems you are seeing are creeping in. >>>> >>>> Should it be set back to “1”? I’m not sure how to proceed otherwise. >>> >>> My guess is that if the release/tools/arm.subr line: >>> >>> chroot ${CHROOTDIR} gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -a 64k ${mddev}s2 >>> >>> was instead (note the added -b use): >>> >>> chroot ${CHROOTDIR} gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -b 64k -a 64k ${mddev}s2 >>> >>> then the line: >>> >>> chroot ${CHROOTDIR} newfs -U -L rootfs /dev/${mddev}s2a >>> >>> would work as expected and things would still be aligned: >>> no aliasing of BSD vs. freebsd-ufs. (In part this is by >>> prior steps already having achieved alignment of BSD.) >> >> From a strict mathematical stand point of view, -a is not necessary when using -b with an aligned value. > > "-a" controls more than the start offset: also the size. > > QUOTE > -a alignment If specified, then the gpart utility tries to > align start offset and partition size to be > multiple of alignment value. > END QUOTE > > I expect your statement would at most apply to the start offset, not to > everything "-a" does. > >> Personally I don’t use the -a option of gpart anymore since it started to do funny magics in front of face. If I remember correct, gpart of the FreeBSD 9.x-RELEASES was still OK (or was it 8?). Nowadays, I align all my storage media by employing -b with a reasonable value. >> > > I've no clue of the specifics that you are referencing and so can not check. It started at unexpected offsets and then left unexpected space at the end - sorry, I don’t use -a anymore for years, and I don’t remember the very details. That said, why then would we use -b in addition to -a, if -a would show the expected behaviour on its own. That is because either -a adds some "funny magic" to the logic, that is stated in the man file, or there is a bug in gpart. Anyway, using -a and -b together bears the danger of the equation being overestimated, namely in the case base is not a multiple (incl. 1) of alignment. Although, that is not the case with your suggestion. -b 64k -a 64k is OK. Finally, I still wonder what might be the technical reason for aligning the size. Best regards Rolf