leendert@cs.vu.nl (Leendert van Doorn) (10/18/90)
About two weeks ago I send out a request for partition table system indices, and here are the responses. If there is enough interest, I will maintain this table. Mnemonic ID Description ---------------------------------------------------------- DOS-12 0x01 MS-DOS, 12-bit FAT XENIX / 0x02 Xenix root XENIX /usr 0x03 Xenix user DOS-16 0x04 MS-DOS, 16-bit FAT DOS-EXT 0x05 MS-DOS Extended DOS-BIG 0x06 MS-DOS Large HPFS 0x07 OS/2 High Performance File System QNX 0x07 QNX AX 0x07 Advanced Unix AIX 0x08 A/IX AIX boot 0x09 bootable A/IX partition OPUS 0x10 Opus VENIX/286 0x40 Venix 80286 NOVELL 0x51 possibly Novell CP/M 0x52 CP/M 386/IX 0x63 386/IX UPORT/386 0x63 Microport's V/386 NOVELL 0x64 Novell PC/IX 0x75 PC/IX MINIX-OLD 0x80 pre 1.4b Minix MINIX 0x81 Minix partition AMOEBA 0x93 Amoeba BADBLK 0x94 Amoeba's bad block partition CCP/M 0xDB Concurrent CP/M DOS-SCND 0xF2 Second Dos partition, some 3.2 and all 3.3+ BADTRK 0xFF Bad track table Having composed this list, I'm still stuck with the following questions: The system index 0x07 seems to be very popular, at least three systems are using it (OS/2, QNX, and AX). This seems weird, I would expect that at least in these lower regions there would be some coordination. If the system index 0x63 (386/IX and UPORT/386) actually a generic system ID for V/386 ? The DOS-SCND partition is odd, at least I've never seen it before. Could somebody check this out, please ? Does any body know the format of the bad track table (0xFF) ? Thanks to ge@dutlru1.tudelft.nl, john@jwt.UUCP, mitchell@mdi.com, stevesa@beaver.cs.washington.edu, and tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de. Leendert P.s. Please send updates, additions, deletions, etc. to leendert@cs.vu.nl -- Leendert van Doorn <leendert@cs.vu.nl> Vrije Universiteit / Dept. of Maths. & Comp. Sc. Amoeba project / De Boelelaan 1081 1081 HV Amsterdam / The Netherlands