Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
>
> > Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > > But there is no indication of what the problems could be,
> > > > or what he thinks the geometry should be (and why).
> > > > I see nothing very wrong in the posted data.
> > >
> > > We agree Andries, but the enduser wants to see stuff the same.
> >
> > In my case, I have two identical Maxtor drives, but they reported
> > different geometry. How could that be? Move the "virgin" drive to
> > the motherboard IDE controller and suddenly the geometry is the same.
> > Use fdisk and partition the disk, write it, and then move to the
> > promise controller and the "correct" geometry was used (that is, it is
> > now the same as when hooked up to the motherboard ide controller).
> >
> > Why was it important to me? I'm doing RAID1 and it is really nice to
> > have the same geometry so that the partition info is the same between
> > the two drives. Makes life easier.
>
> Please read the above and pass the geometry to the kernel.
> Mother boards have to do a translation to use the drive completely.
Andre,
But now it doesn't matter. The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
"stuck". <shrug> I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for the human
to deal with).
--
-rupa
On 31 Jan 2001, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> But now it doesn't matter. The drive was tainted (fdisk run while
> attached to the mainboard controller) and now that geometry is
> "stuck". <shrug> I was mostly explaining why it is nice to get the
> same geometry on two identical drives (RAID1 is easier for the human
> to deal with).
It doesn't but I got out of the geometry business two+ years ago...
Andries (Mr. FDisk) Brouwer is the man......
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development