>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Manuel Bouyer" <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
> To: "jon" <TYR124840@tyler.net>
> Cc: <netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: sysinst segfaults near end of installation
>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:56:17PM -0500, jon wrote:
> > > Don't think so - like I said the values are ALWAYS off by one, not
just
> in
> > > some instances, and the exact same off-by-one situation occurs also
with
> > > cylinders.
> >
> > OK, so it's an error in the rounding parameters I guess.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > by the way, i can duplicate the above for any size value, its
ALWAYS
> > > > > increased by one when reported later
> > > > >
> > > > > then during configuration of the disklabel, the size of the netbsd
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the disk (/dev/wd0c) is reported as 9998, instead of 9999
> > > >
> > > > This may also be a rounding problem. What do the sectors number
looks
> like
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Making my NetBSD partition, I choose 0 as the offset since it's the
> first on
> > > my disk, and that should automatically reserve track 1. But it reports
> the
> > > offset as 63, not 64. Then, for size, I enter -1, so that it should
end
> at
> >
> > 63 is, OK, it starts counting at 0.
> >
> > > the beginning of my second partition, which is of type 0C. But the
size
> of
> > > the NetBSD partition is reported 20582812 and the end 20582875, which
is
> the
> > > same sector as my next partition begins on.
> >
> > I think this is OK too, end point to the start of the next partition.
> >
> > >
> > > During disklabel config though, the size is still reported 20582812,
but
> the
> > > end this time is reported 20582874, not ...75.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > again, the above i can duplicate
> > > > >
> > > > > then, when i then enter 0 as the offset for /dev/wd0a and 9999 as
> the
> > > size,
> > > > > i end up with 9998
> > > >
> > > > You make wd0a the whole NetBSD partition, so you don't have any swap
> > > > partition ?
> > > > This may be because of this sysinst dumps core.
> > >
> > > Like I said, I've got a gig of ram, so I really don't think I have
much
> need
> > > of swap. I'm thinking this would be a bug with sysinst...
> > >
> > > Possibly I could circumvent it in the short term by enlarging my
> ramdisk,
> > > but I don't know how to do that unfortunately.
> >
> > No enlarging the ramdisk won't help. The "file system full" is a
> consequence
> > of sysinst dumping core, not the cause. The cause is likely to be a bug
> > in sysinst, which doesn't check if a swap partition exists or not.
> > The workaround in your case is probably to make a very small swap
parition
> > (1 cylinder for example)
>
> K, thanks a lot. =]
>
> >
> > --
> > Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
> > --
> >
>