is fdisk supposed to be better than GParted?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: Basic Ubuntu Curiosity Questons
Next: zip files
From: David W. Hodgins on 18 Feb 2010 20:15 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:30:51 -0500, Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > At Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:16 -0800 Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: >> On my Slackware 13 box: >> >> $ /sbin/fdisk -v >> fdisk (util-linux-ng 2.14.2) ^^ > I wonder what that -ng is all about? Maybe Slackware is using a forked > version of util-linux? On my Mandriva 2010.0 system, I get ... $ /sbin/fdisk -v fdisk (util-linux-ng 2.16.1) The info in the rpm package indicates it's from ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux-ng Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: Stefan Patric on 19 Feb 2010 00:44 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:01:32 -0800, Bill Waddington wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:40:38 GMT, Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> > wrote: > >>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:23:19 -0800, yawnmoth wrote: >> >>> According to "sudo fdisk -1", /dev/sdc is described thusly: >>> >>> Disk /dev/sdc: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes 255 heads, 63 >>> sectors/track, 14593 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = >>> 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0xf0000000 >>> >>> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >>> /dev/sdc1 * 14267 14594 2620416 c W95 FAT32 >>> (LBA) /dev/sdc2 11 1316 10485760 7 >>> HPFS/NTFS /dev/sdc3 * 1316 14267 104031232 7 >>> HPFS/NTFS /dev/sdc4 14267 14594 2621440 f W95 >>> Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sdc5 14267 14594 2620416 0 >>> Empty >>> >>> Partition table entries are not in disk order > > [snip] > >> 3. sdc1 & sdc3 are both set as boot partitions. On any physical hard >>drive, regardless of how many partitions it has, there should only be >>one partition designated with the "boot" flag. > > Minor nit: IIRC some boot managers - System Commander for instance - > use the active flag to mark partitions as bootable. Bootable in that > case means bootable by SC, and allowed to appear in its boot menu. It > will flag multiple partitions as bootable if directed to by the user and > it finds what it considers to be a valid boot signature in the > partition. Never used System Commander or any other "Windows" boot manager for that matter to multiboot different Windows versions. Linux and lilo or grub, the easiest way, but still not always a simple procedure. Windows can be so quirky, I'm sometimes amazed it works at all. Stef
From: Stefan Patric on 19 Feb 2010 00:51 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:51:58 -0800, yawnmoth wrote: > [snip] > I tried to delete all the partitions with GParted but after GParted > spent a while reloading, I wasn't sure if anything had actually > happened. I went into Windows, saw that they had now been deleted and > went ahead and formatted it while there. Did you create a new partition on the hard drive in Windows before formatting it, or did you format it unpartitioned. What does fdisk -lu show? What does Windows show? Stef
From: Jerry Peters on 19 Feb 2010 16:57
Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > At Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:16 -0800 Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > >> >> On 2010-02-18, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> > Keith Keller wrote: >> >> On 2010-02-18, pk <pk(a)pk.invalid> wrote: >> >>> yawnmoth wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> According to GParted, however, it only has one partition - an >> >>>> unallocated one with an unallocated filesystem. My question is... >> >>>> why the difference? >> >>> You might find this note enlightening, taken from the fdisk man page: >> >>> >> >>> "fdisk is a buggy program that does fuzzy things - usually it happens to >> >>> produce reasonable results. Its single advantage is that it has some support >> >>> for BSD disk labels and other non-DOS partition tables. Avoid it if you >> >>> can." >> >> >> >> I was going to quote that from my man page, but then noted that it does >> >> not appear in man fdisk on my CentOS systems, only on my Slackware >> >> system. It's possible the OP has the CentOS version of the fdisk man >> >> page. (It's certainly possible the OP did not read the man page.) >> > >> > I have never had trouble with fdisk on my systems, but my biggest hard >> > drives are only 73 Gigabytes. >> > >> > On my Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 system, the manual page for fdisk has >> > this for its BUGS section. >> > >> > BUGS >> > There are several *fdisk programs around. Each has its problems and >> > strengths. Try them in the order parted, fdisk, sfdisk. >> >> It does have that, but it doesn't have the "fuzzy things" part described >> above. >> >> To answer Robert's question in another post, I have Slackware 13, but >> IIRC the fuzzy things part has been in the man page for Slackware 13 for >> many releases. >> >> On my Slackware 13 box: >> >> $ /sbin/fdisk -v >> fdisk (util-linux-ng 2.14.2) > ^^ > > I wonder what that -ng is all about? Maybe Slackware is using a forked > version of util-linux? Slackware 12.1: ~$ fdisk -v fdisk (util-linux-ng 2.13.1) util-linux-ng releases get announced on LKML, so if it's a fork it's a pretty official one. Jerry |