[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: parted error
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: parted error |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:36:44 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:29:33PM +0100, Pixel wrote:
> this is not so. fdisk says so, but it is wrong.
>
> I asked H.G. for more info, and here is the result
> (displayed in cylinders to ease comparison with fdisk)
>
> - partitions
> 0.003922 -> 394.000000
> 394.003922 -> 893.000000
> 893.003922 -> 2933.000000
> 2933.003922 -> 3510.000000
> 3510.003922 -> 3541.000000
> 3541.003922 -> 4866.342484
> - the extended
> 394.000000 -> 4866.342484
>
> So the problem comes from diskdrake trying to use the full size of
> harddrive [1], but hda9 is clearly not outside of the extended
> partition.
Parted should be able to handle this. You can get more info
by setting a break point on the exception handler, and doing
a backtrace.
Cheers,
Andrew