Re: Critical Parted Question

[Szakacsits Szabolcs]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:24:29 -0500
> Jeremy Moles <Jeremy Moles <address@hidden>> wrote:
> 
>  | My question is: why is parted modifying these values? Is there an
>  | invocation that says: "don't touch the number of heads, etc." As it
>  | stands, parted seems to do what it wants to the geometry parameters
>  | (though, I'm sure smarter people than me wrote parted and have a good
>  | reason WHY they're doing it :) ), but it's seriously breaking the
>  | recovery partition.
> The problem might lie within the obsolete HDIOGETGEO ioctl still in use
> by GNU Parted (there's been another thread about this and the fix will
> probably be in 1.7rc1) which results in Parted getting the wrong geometry
> (which in turn might get written at some place to the partition table).
> 
> The question left is: why does changing the geometry to the old values
> not help?

Usually this happens (with any type of partition) when the partition start
was also adjusted to the bogus geometry. Easy to check by comparing the
two partition tables (e.g. outputs of fdisk -lu). But unfortunately Jeremy
didn't send this info, just like the Parted version he used (this issue is
2+ years old but it was supposed to be fixed 1.5 year ago).

BTW, I'm unsubscribing because FSF is still supportive spamming the GNU
mailing lists (see e.g. the list archive:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-parted/2005-12/threads.html). If
there are any ntfs related issues then please feel free to send them to
address@hidden

        Szaka