Oh, and I almost forgot I opened an issue for this: https://www.illumos.org/issues/2949
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:49 PM Gordon Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > I gather the topic here is partition alignment. (If not, sorry, nevermind:) > My previous experience when looking into this for: fdisk, format, etc. > is that with "modern disks" (pretty much anything that survives today) > partitioning systems should simply use megabyte alignment, and > SHOULD NOT bother about cylinders etc. > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 2:44 PM Eric J Bowman via illumos-discuss > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > CSM isn't compatible with DDR-6. UEFI's won't have CSM, soon. My only > > multi-session optical media that works with UEFI-CSM is BD-RE which was > > never bootable to begin with. If I had some other multi-session media > > format, I don't think it would work without CSM any better than > > distro.iso's which forgot -no-emul. Whole lotta Rock Ridge options won't be > > valid moving forward, due to incompatibility at the "alignment" level, like > > offsetting an overlapping partition containing the real distro.iso -- at > > best, gets you 16-bit real mode that only the Intel 8088 MINIX Experience > > doesn't care about -- due to NVRAM; it just loses access to system RAM w/o > > CSM. > > > > UEFI says Rock Ridge. UEFI* lists some things which translate to, "won't > > work without CSM" while hewing to Joliet without saying so, but comes as no > > surprise because Joliet's Windows. I don't think Joliet's multi-session > > compatible, but I also note, UEFI allows booting a standard .iso in a > > partition with an MBR -- not that said MBR is required to point to anything > > actually existing, which defaults to pointing to -- Windows. > > > > -Eric > > > > > > > > ---- On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:54:02 -0700 Eric J Bowman via illumos-discuss > > <[email protected]> wrote --- > > > > Indeed. But that's the fs inside the .iso, we're trying to fit the .iso > > into a partition UEFI requires to be at least 1 MiB (which should probably > > be changed to 2). > > > > -Eric > > > > > > > > ---- On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:45:51 -0700 Udo Grabowski (IMK) > > <[email protected]> wrote --- > > > > > > > > On 10/06/2024 19:24, Eric J Bowman via illumos-discuss wrote: > > > With few exceptions, 'mkisofs -pad' behaves the same way across tools in > > > that it's an arbitrary, static value. The others dial the wrong number. > > > ... > > > Suggest new interop guideline in general -- partition in MiB/GiB using > > > values which are a power of 2. Anyone got any drives laying around they > > > need partitioned? lol, so easy now... if 'mkisofs -pad' behavior were to > > > be "pad to multiple of 65536" would it cause anyone any harm? > > > > In xa1 mode (muiltisession CD), sectors are 2056 bytes, so that won't > > fit into 65536 ... > > > > illumos / illumos-discuss / see discussions + participants + delivery > > options Permalink ------------------------------------------ illumos: illumos-discuss Permalink: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/Te6d81d754118b912-Mcbffa62c4da6c1669ed83705 Delivery options: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription
