[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LILO question...
At 01:36 PM 9/16/96 +00:00, you wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:48:53 +0200 (IST)
>Hi!
>
>>
>> There is no special reason. Or, rather, there is an excellent one - the
>> 512 number is "nice" while the 446 is "not nice". However, when one
>> _writes_ the MBR, one has to use the "not nice" number, so that is what
>> one finds in the docs.
>
>It also saves on entropy for while you won't save any disk space by
>saving 446 or 512 bytes, using "nice" numbers saves on entropy. Now
>today saving entropy might not seem like a big deal, but just wai a
>couple of billions of billions of years, and by then it'll be too
>late.
>
>Eli Algranti <OR17367@elbit.co.il>
>
>... 1024 buckets of bits on a wall 1024 buckets of bits
>
>
IMHO, the '446' has nothing to do with aesthetics. The MBR is always 512
bytes long (standard low-level format). The 446 bytes is the space reserved
for the BIOS invoked bootstrap code. That leaves us with 66 bytes, defined
as follows:
the partition table is 4 by 16 bytes entries, which accounts for 64 bytes.
The balance is reserved for a two byte MBR signature. I assume we all know
it, but it's better to put in the perspective for the uninitiated audience.
Best wishes,
DD