At 01:04 AM 2/28/96 -0500, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>I mount ZIP disks with no disklabel on them from time to time myself.

To see if there was a hardware problem, I tried a simple 'cat /dev/sd0d',
and everything is there.. Perhaps you have a newer version of the install
disks/OS that have more robust support?

>>I suspect what the driver is (should) be doing is assuming the msdos
>>partition starts at sector 0, which a zip disk without a partition
>>table would do.  I don't think I partitioned any of the zip disks I
>>have.
>
>The zip disks that I have came formatted with a standard DOS partition
>table with fake 64H/32S geometry and one nonemoty partition (the last
>entry in the table) at offset 32, and a DOS file system in that
>partition.

Well, when I do a 'disklabel /dev/sd0d', it returns:

disklabel: warning, DOS parition table with no valid NetBSD partition

So it's recognizing the fact that it's a DOS-formatted disk. It also reports
4 parititions on the disk, so I think /dev/sd0d is correct. So (deep breath)
what's the difference between:

mount -t /dev/fd0a /mnt
and
mount -t /dev/sd0d /mnt

A: The first one works, the second returns the error 'Invalid Arguement'. Now,
   what I'd like to know is, what's wrong with it? Given that I can see the
   contents of the disk, and that the OS knows what kind of filesystem is on 
   the disk, I'd think there's a bug in the mount command that came for my
(v1.1)
   install disks. Your mileage may vary..


 M.
--
Everyone wants it Better, Faster, and Cheaper.
Pick two and call me back.

martin.loeffler@utoronto.ca