Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

[John Nielsen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 11:34:52 am Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:25 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:57 -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:04 +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> > > > to UDMA33. I figure, they can safely be ignored?
> > >
> > > Only if there isn't some massive performance degradation.
> > > ports/benchmarks/bonie++ can tell you that.
> > >
> > > As for the boot loader and your gmirror volumes; it's hard to say. 
> > > It's possible that there is some "absolute" or "non-relative" data in
> > > there related to the device and the bus.
> > >
> > > Also:  Maybe the geometry of the devices changes between modes?
> > >
> > > Send us the comparable dmesg(8) in both modes?
> > >
> > > ~BAS
> >
> > On my Intel ICH7 based laptop, switching from SATA/PATA emulation to
> > SATA native mode changes the device of my HD from ad0 to ad4.
> >
> > YMMV
>
> right which I never understood absolute device number.  you can choose
> to do that in obsd/nbsd, but fbsd seems to psuedo magically do it.
> reminds me Solaris. ~BAS

If you don't want this behavior then remove "options ATA_STATIC_ID" from your 
kernel config.

JN