| 1 |
On Aug 13, 2012 11:04 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 |
| 7 |
>> Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |
| 10 |
>> > wrote: |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 13 |
>> > > |
| 14 |
>> > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with traditional DOS |
| 15 |
>> > > > > partitioning style and grub instead of GPT and grub2. |
| 16 |
>> > > > |
| 17 |
>> > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with grub2. Do |
| 18 |
>> > > > those two not mix well? |
| 19 |
>> > > |
| 20 |
>> > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're starting |
| 21 |
>> > > from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of the legacy MBR |
| 22 |
>> > > limitations and fragility. |
| 23 |
>> > > |
| 24 |
>> > |
| 25 |
>> > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> it's 30 years old, |
| 28 |
>> only 4 primary partitions, |
| 29 |
>> only 16 extended partitions, |
| 30 |
>> it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, |
| 31 |
>> it all has to fit in one sector. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really should |
| 34 |
>> have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 primary |
| 35 |
>> partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as a leap-frog |
| 36 |
>> area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the disk. That's |
| 37 |
>> fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks my ability to |
| 38 |
>> set the thing up easily. |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the |
| 41 |
>> meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function |
| 44 |
>> doesn't mean we should continue to use it. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more |
| 48 |
elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was _fragile_ |
| 49 |
about MBR. Completely different things. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Well, for one, MBR has no copy, and it is not protected from corruption. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
GPT has 2 copies: One at the head of the disk right behind a "legacy MBR", |
| 55 |
and another at the end of the disk. Both copies are protected by magic |
| 56 |
strings and CRC. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Rgds, |
Archives