Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place! |
| Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
11-20-2012, 05:35 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: India
Distribution: Fedora, CentOs, RHEL
Posts: 161
Rep:
|
Why MBR is limited to 512 bytes?
446+64+2=512(MBR)
446bytes for boot loader(commonly grub for most linux systems)
64bytes for partition table informtaion
2bytes for magic number.
i got the above information by some investigation on MBR :P
My Questions:
1.Why MBR is limited to 512bytes?
2.Why 446 byes is allotted to boot loader?(i know this contains the information for the next stages to boot the system)
3.How the system make use of these 2bytes??
Please dont think i'm rude in asking questions like this.
Please answer me..as it may help other people in this site as well. :P
Thanks a ton in advance,
Ravi
Note: Got some more questions.will ask you once my mind has a clear pic on these questions first. 
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 05:48 AM
|
#2
|
|
Moderator
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 42,711
|
It's basically historical. That was all that was felt was required way back 25 or so years ago. That was a LOT of space back then, and without a new standard blowing it away, like GUID partition tables, it can't just be changed trivially. Check the wikipedia page (or a millions google hits) for a lot more discussion of this
Last edited by acid_kewpie; 11-20-2012 at 05:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 05:49 AM
|
#3
|
|
LQ Veteran
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: the Netherlands
Distribution: lfs, debian, rhel
Posts: 8,711
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 06:27 AM
|
#4
|
|
LQ Veteran
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,797
|
You might also want to know why the partition table has entries for cylinder, head, and sector**---or why the tradition system allows only 4 "primary" partitions, one of which can be an "extended" partition. Or why the extended partition is commonly described as a container for the "logical" partitions--even though is is really just a **pointer** to the first logical partition (which in turn has another **extended** partition to point to the next logical---etc.)
The answer to all of this: "That's the way it was designed." As already suggested, the design was driven by resources--in this case, space on the hard disk*. The history of technology is full of cases where something was designed to meet the constraints of the time, the original reasons were forgotten by most, and the design continued to morph and evolve over many years. If we were to start with clean sheet of paper in 2012, would there ever be an internal combustion engine? ----Probably not.
*I remember when getting a 10 MEGAbyte hard drive for the original MAC was a really big deal
**Warning: trying to relate the CHS notation to a simple offset on the drive or partition can cause temporary insanity or even brain damage.
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 06:49 AM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: India
Distribution: Fedora, CentOs, RHEL
Posts: 161
Original Poster
Rep:
|
:) Thanks for the replies!
3. Can any one tell me the use of last 2bytes in MBR?
&
4. I need the difference between a volume and a partition?
In windows i guess...they just differ in physical & logical notations..as volumes are represented with C:,D:,..etc.
How about linux???
Thanks,
ravi
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 06:51 AM
|
#6
|
|
Moderator
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 42,711
|
Dude, you really can just google these... You don't seem to have tried to find this information at all.
*I* just found out from searching that the 2 bytes helps indentify bigendian and little endian systems, and identifies the end of the boot sector.
Last edited by acid_kewpie; 11-20-2012 at 06:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 06:58 AM
|
#7
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: India
Distribution: Fedora, CentOs, RHEL
Posts: 161
Original Poster
Rep:
|
acid_kewpie, sorry...
& thanks..
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 07:53 AM
|
#8
|
|
LQ Veteran
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,797
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaviTezu
3. Can any one tell me the use of last 2bytes in MBR?
&
4. I need the difference between a volume and a partition?
In windows i guess...they just differ in physical & logical notations..as volumes are represented with C:,D:,..etc.
How about linux???
Thanks,
ravi
|
All of these terms tend to get used ambiguously....
Note, for example, that a partition cannot be mounted or otherwise used by the system unless it first has a filesystem on it. When we speak of "mounting" a partition, volume, drive, whatever----it really means we are mounting (AKA connecting) the filesystem contained on it.
In Unix and Linux, the correct conventions are used---In Windows, they tend to be incorrect. (They even have the slash backwards in pathnames.....  )
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 07:47 AM
|
#9
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: India
Distribution: Fedora, CentOs, RHEL
Posts: 161
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Thank you very munch. pixellany
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|