> I tried using this drive to move data from my linux system to BSD but I don't 
> fully understand the disklabel issues.
> 
> What I have observed under linux is:
> 1. Linux fdisk reports a "bad" partition table with four primary partitions 
> on fresh pre-formatted LS120 media.

does LS120 use partition. i think you should use whole (*d) device?

> 2. To mount a pre-formatted disk or one that's been formatted under windows I 
> must use device /dev/hda not hda1.
> 3. Therefore, I always use linux fdisk to delete the current partitions and 
> create either one msdos or ext2 partition which can then be mounted as hda1 
> with no problems.
> 
> After reading the BSD disklabel man pages and a couple of your FAQ's about 
> zip drives etc. I still can't get LS120 media mounted.  The disk in question 
> is formatted with one msdos partition via linux and is good, I can read/write 
> under linux.
> 
> This is the output of disklabel sd0:
> # /dev/rsd0d:
> type: ATAPI
> disk: 7XABB0017898
> label: fictitious
> flags:
> bytes/sector: 512
> sectors/track: 32
> tracks/cylinder: 8
> sectors/cylinder: 256
> cylinders: 963
> total sectors: 246528
> rpm: 720
> interleave: 1
> trackskew: 0
> cylinderskew: 0
> headswitch: 0		# microseconds
> track-to-track seek: 0	# microseconds
> drivedata: 0 
> 
> 8 partitions:
> #        size   offset     fstype   [fsize bsize   cpg]
>   d:   246528        0     unused        0     0         # (Cyl.    0 - 962)
>   e:   246496       32      MSDOS                        # (Cyl.    0*- 962)
>   h: -859853824        0     unused        0     0         # (Cyl.    0 - 
> 13418411)
> 
> I have tried various disklabel options such as -r, -R, -e, -I, etc. and have 
> dumped the above, edited it and written it back with disklabel -R but nothing 
> works.  The disklabel always is the same as above.  My BSD HD disklabel 
> currently is using e: so I need to tell it that the LS120 msdos partition is 
> on h: but as you can see the drive/media??? is reporting an erroneous value.  
> I have seen this value, -859853824, reported under linux which makes me 
> suspect the drive.  The only other possibility is the fdisk program on all 
> OS's I've used is doing a read-modify-write, leaving "bad" information in the 
> partition table.
> 
> Am I on the right track or completely overlooking something?
> 
> thanks,
> scott
> folokai@earthlink.net
> 

-----------------------------------------------
UNIX *is* user friendly.
It is just a bit selective about his friends.