[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?
From: |
H. J. Lu |
Subject: |
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs? |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:35:26 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 07:11:22AM +1000, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 01:35:44PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I updated
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72686
>
> Parted gets it's BIOS geometry from linux in the first place...
> unless it is inconsistent with the partition table, which it
> is in your case.
>
> You haven't convinced me that these semantics are bad, or that
> parted doesn't match these semantics.
>
>
> Basically: BIOS geometry is not well defined. I don't care if it
> sometimes doesn't match what the BIOS says - it is better to keep
> the partition table consistent. (eg: while doing data recovery
> on another machine)
I think I know what happened. That IDE drive was connected to a 3ware
ATA IDE RAID controller, which reported the geometry as 9732/255/63.
When I moved it to an IDE channel on MB, BIOS reports 155114/16/63.
That is why Linux kernel reports:
...
hdc: 156355584 sectors (80054 MB) w/1819KiB Cache, CHS=155114/16/63, UDMA(33)
...
Partition check:
...
hdc: [PTBL] [9732/255/63] hdc1
H.J.
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/09/14
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/09/14
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?,
H. J. Lu <=
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/09/15
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/09/15
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/09/15
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/09/15
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/09/15