Re: UEFI question

From	blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	alt.os.linux
Subject	Re: UEFI question
Date	2016-01-03 16:30 +1100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<r7omlc-2af.ln1@psd.motzarella.org> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <n63tb2$pht$2@dont-email.me> <slrnn8b0v3.21a.BitTwister@wb.home.test> <n644hn$d4p$1@saria.nerim.net> <op.yak3i6vba3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> <n678i6$1b17$1@saria.nerim.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Pascal Hambourg wrote:

> David W. Hodgins a écrit :
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:52:07 -0500, Pascal Hambourg
>> <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Then how do you understand his "Using gpt does require uefi" ?
>> 
>> I was referring to a gpt partition table, not a hybrid table that has
>> both the gpt entries and the mbr code/table.
>> 
>> With a hybrid table, the drive can be used to boot on either bios or
>> uefi firmware. With a non-hybrid gpt table, uefi is required.
> 
> This is only a Windows limitation. A hybrid table is absolutely not
> required in order to boot on BIOS.
> I repeat : unless broken, a BIOS implementation does not care about the
> partition table.
> 
>> Note that when using bios firmware, the 2TB limit still applies.
> 
> Applies to what exactly ? The 2TB limit comes from the MSDOS partition
> table format, not from the BIOS.

Depending on how old your BIOS is it might have problems with anything 
over, 512 MB, 8 GB, 137 GB, 2.2 TB, or 144 PB.  That first one was *Mega*.  
There might be one missing from that list.  Also there are lots of other 
non BIOS limitations - that we don't care about.  

I remember partitioning drives so that the kernel would be on a partition 
that was where the BIOS could find it.  Linux is fine with "big" disks 
after the kernel is loaded.  

<http://micom.net/Downloads/Drive%20Size%20Limits.htm>  

-- 
blind Pete
Sig goes here...

Thread

UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 05:11 -0700
  Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-30 13:35 +0100
    Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 06:03 -0700
      Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0000
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 14:10 -0700
          Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-12-30 16:26 -0500
            Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 10:21 +0100
              Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-12-31 08:50 -0500
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 16:19 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 11:51 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-31 19:34 +0000
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 21:52 +0100
                Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2016-01-01 18:58 -0500
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-02 02:19 +0100
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:30 +1100
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 11:12 +0100
                Re: UEFI question Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:44 +0000
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 15:16 +0100
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 23:12 +1100
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:53 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-02 12:08 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:47 -0700
            Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 02:37 -0700
          Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-30 22:18 +0000
      Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +0100
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 02:46 -0700
      Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:20 +1100
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 05:08 -0700
          Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-01 21:51 +0100
            Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 15:17 -0700
              Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-01 23:06 +0000
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 02:16 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-02 10:04 +0000
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 03:39 -0700
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:20 +1100
          Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:14 +1100

csiph-web