Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: DOS and 386BSD (and NT and OS2)
Supersedes: <92288.115808K390670@ALIJKU11.BITNET>
Organization: Johannes Kepler University Linz - Computing Center
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 13:00:30 CET
From: <K390670@ALIJKU11.BITNET>

In article <92286.101837K390670@ALIJKU11.BITNET> I write:

>My machine is a 486-50 with 212MB Conner CP3204F (IDE) and 543MB Conner
>CP3540 (SCSI-2), the latter of which is connected to an Adaptec 1542B.
>
>I have painstakingly followed Terry Lambert's advice about setting the
>IDE drive to its "native" parameters and about putting 386BSD (ptntype A5)
>*first* on the disk, DOS second.
>
>Besides that I lose all tracks beyond 1023 with this method, install
>still fails:
>>newfs: ioctl (WDINFO): No such process
>>newfs: /dev/rwd0a: can't rewrite disk label
>>Could not format filesystem. Installation failed.

Terry Lambert replies:

>There's still the possibility of picking a cylinder boundry which is both
>a physical cylinder boundery and a translated cyliner boundry at the same
>time.  The problem you appear to be having is related to the ability for
>the DOS-style master boot record to find the boot code, but the inability
>of the 386BSD boot to find the rest of the code it's supposed to be loading;
>it's likely that the 386BSD partition doesn't start on a cylinder boundry.
>(stuff deleted)

However, I said I have set the drive to its "native"==UNTRANSLATED parameters
anyway. (Untranslated for the Conner CP3204F is: 1366C, 8H, 38S)
Terry's hint seems to apply to *boot* failing on *translated* drives (which is
not my problem).
The *install* program fails with the above posted message.


I also write:

>> I have painstakingly followed Terry Lambert's advice about setting the
>> IDE drive to its "native" parameters and about putting 386BSD (ptntype A5)
>> *first* on the disk, DOS second.

Othman bin Ahmad replies to that:

>I do not need to do this. Just install DOS first and leave some for 386bsd
>at the last partition, then use nu to lavel the 386bsd partition a5. Linux
>archive has pdisk(?) or something, which may be used in lie of nu.

However, in a posting, Terry Lambert replies (>) to someones troubles (>>):

>>Is it? My partition tables make me believe that my DOS
>>partition is the first on my disc and that 386BSD partitions are
>>located after it. .....

>This will have to change unless you modify the code which acts on the disk,
>and assumes 386BSD is first.  Again, this is asboot and disklabel.

>If you modify the drive type to set the correct geometry in the CMOS, you
>will have to reinstall DOS.  You might as well put the DOS partition after
>the 386BSD partition if you do this, since it will necessitate a reinstall
>anyway. This may put all or part of the DOS partion(s) on or after cylinder
>1024.
>(stuff deleted)
>Either way, you will have to back up your DOS partition, since it can't be
>the first thing on the disk, unless you choose to modify asboot, disklabel,
>and family and pick a place where the physical and translated cylinder
>boundries coincide for your 386BSD to live.

I am somewhat confused: Should I put the DOS partition first, as Othmar bin
Ahmad suggests, avoiding the 1024 cyl problem for DOS, or should I put
386BSD first, according to Terry, allowing asboot, disklabel to run?


tore (toreh@bootes.sds.no) writes:

> DOS, NT & 386BSD from the same disk ... is it possible? How?

I'm not doing that, and don't intend to try.
I still think the best method to avoid all this fuzz (see above) is to keep
386bsd on an IDE drive on its own, and boot other operating systems by
disabling the IDE drive in the machine's CMOS setup, then booting
everything else from bios-emulated SCSI, using whatever boot manager you like.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K390670@EDVZ.UNI-Linz.AC.AT
Gregor Glawitsch

"Everybody should believe in something - I believe I should have another beer!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------