is fdisk supposed to be better than GParted?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: Basic Ubuntu Curiosity Questons
Next: zip files
From: yawnmoth on 17 Feb 2010 20:23 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 According to GParted, however, it only has one partition - an unallocated one with an unallocated filesystem. My question is... why the difference? Also, GParted took a very long time to come up, whereas "sudo fdisk - l" took no time at all. Any ideas as to why?
From: Stefan Patric on 17 Feb 2010 22:40 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 And the partitioning is all fucked up as well. Where to begin... 1. Three partitions overlap: sdc2 ends at 1316. sdc3 begins at 1316 and ends at 14267. sdc4 begins at 14267. They shouldn't. Partitions shouldn't overlap. 2. Three of the partitions, sdc1, sdc4 & sdc5, occupy the same space on the drive. sdc4 is an Extended partition. That's okay, but sdc1 & 5 are both the same partition just with different names and IDs. 3. sdc1 is shown as a Primary partition, by its name, but it's really a Logical one based on its Start and End, residing on sdc4. In Linux, drives numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are used only for Primary partitions. 5 and above are Logical and all reside on the Extended partition. An Extended partition can only be a Primary. And there should only be one Extended partition per physical hard drive. 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. > According to GParted, however, it only has one partition - an > unallocated one with an unallocated filesystem. My question is... why > the difference? I'm not surprised. Why? Maybe... GParted is a smart partitioning/ editing utility compared to fdisk. Probably got confused by all the partition errors when it tried to read the disk. > Also, GParted took a very long time to come up, whereas "sudo fdisk - l" > took no time at all. Any ideas as to why? I'm surprise it read it all. fdisk -l just reads and displays the Partition Table without reading the drive itself. Here take a look at the partitioning on my Linux box: [stef(a)localhost ~]$ fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000f2123 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 1220 9799618+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 1221 6100 39198600 83 Linux /dev/sda3 6101 6163 506047+ 82 Linux swap /dev/sda4 6164 19457 106784055 85 Linux extended /dev/sda5 6164 8075 15358108+ 83 Linux /dev/sda6 8076 19457 91425883+ 83 Linux This is the way partitioning should look. See no overlaps. All partitions in order with no gaps. Only one partition with the boot flag. Although Linux doesn't use it. It's there for the BIOS. The system by default actually boots off the distro on sda5. Stef
From: Dan C on 17 Feb 2010 22:47 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 > > According to GParted, however, it only has one partition - an > unallocated one with an unallocated filesystem. My question is... why > the difference? > > Also, GParted took a very long time to come up, whereas "sudo fdisk - l" > took no time at all. Any ideas as to why? Yer fukd. Start over. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he backed into a squad car. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
From: Keith Keller on 17 Feb 2010 23:02 First, I don't understand how your Subject: relates to your post. You seem to be asking what the differences are. On 2010-02-18, yawnmoth <terra1024(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > According to "sudo fdisk -1", /dev/sdc is described thusly: I assume you mean fdisk -l, not 1 the number. > 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 > > According to GParted, however, it only has one partition - an > unallocated one with an unallocated filesystem. My question is... > why the difference? Does your parted have support for MS-DOS partitions? Some do, some do not, IIRC. > Also, GParted took a very long time to come up, whereas "sudo fdisk - > l" took no time at all. Any ideas as to why? Just a guess, but possibly because it doesn't have a gpt label? To answer your Subject:, fdisk does not understand disks larger than 2tb (again, IIRC, but I know there is an upper limit). So if you have a RAID of 2tb disks, you will either need to use the entire disk as a filesystem (which can confuse some people) or use parted to put a GPT label on the disk instead. So at some point, not only is parted better, but fdisk (and other utilities that only understand MS-DOS partition tables) is not even useful. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: DenverD on 18 Feb 2010 01:58
Keith Keller wrote: > I assume you mean fdisk -l, not 1 the number. that and her impossible to believe jumbled fdisk output, makes me think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I -- DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (20090817), KDE 3.5.7 "release 72-11", openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.4-default #1 SMP i686 athlon |