GPT disks, and in any case is considered deprecated so the lack of
a GPT equivalent for 0xfd seems inconsequential.
> The
> man page is mum on that subject. That, combined with the hand waving
> explanation given, indicates that this was not well thought out when
> it was added to the man page.
Right, the kernel developers attempting to avoid, as much as practical, the
possibility of confusion down the road were thoughtless; rather than the person
who's arguing in favor of not thinking or doing anything about it until there's
an actual manifested problem.
Chris Murphy
al documentation on mdadm explicitly recommends metadata v1.2 and
type code 0xda. There is no confusion on this point. Saying there is doesn't
make it true.
0xfd is defined as "Linux raid autodetect" which is what parted also calls it.
But mdadm metadata 1.x is not autodetect. And you're saying calling it the
wrong thing is nevertheless still OK because it doesn't matter. It's fingers in
the ears lalala logic.
Chris Murphy
s a
whole, it's saying you can choose 0xfd with 0.9 metadata, or you can choose
0xda with 1.x metadata. It is not suggesting use of 0xfd with 1.x metadata.
And this has sufficiently explained the conflict with using either 0xfd or
0x83, even on Linux.
Chris Murphy
On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/13/2014 9:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> Why does it matter? Linux doesn't pay attention to the
>>> partition type code anyhow. I
On Jul 13, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 07/10/2014 07:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> This is in master branch.
>>
>> libparted/labels/dos.c 98#define PARTITION_LINUX_RAID0xfd
>>
], might create problems in the event of
array recovery through a live cdrom."
https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Autodetect
Chris Murphy
ed should be relying on libblkid, if it isn't already.
Chris Murphy
manager. However in that
case, to access the partition map and activate the individual partitions before
mounting them, I used kpartx -a.
Chris Murphy
when it doesn't have a partition table is vaguely useful. Granted, mkfs.xfs
requires -f to obliterate another file system, and mkfs.btrfs should soon if
not already.
Chris Murphy
k /dev/vdc: 17.6TB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: unknown
Disk Flags:
# mount | grep vdc
/dev/vdc on /mnt type btrfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,space_cache)
Chris Murphy
f that doesn't work. The CHS stuff isn't how modern drives work in the
past 10 years.
Chris Murphy
On May 14, 2013, at 8:29 AM, cr...@gtek.biz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 04:14, "Chris Murphy"
> said:
>> So again the best
>> option is specifying the first partition start sector of 2048 (i.e. 1MB),
>> and from
>> there in whole MB increments.
I thought a patch by Rod Smith was accepted and incorporated into 3.1 to deal
with this, but I'm still seeing Linux partitions with the Windows basic data
GUID on GPT disks. Is this expected?
Chris Murphy
On May 10, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.05.2013 04:52, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> The simplest rule of thumb is to start a partition at 1MB, and specify all
>> partition sizes in whole MB's. It solves this, and maybe also for SSDs. The
>> o
idelines on what to put in it.
The simplest rule of thumb is to start a partition at 1MB, and specify all
partition sizes in whole MB's. It solves this, and maybe also for SSDs. The
open question is some SSDs have 2+MB erase block sizes and it's not clear if
there's a benefit, or even a way, to partition on 2MB boundaries. Any recent
partition tool starts the first partition on a 1MB boundary.
Chris Murphy
On May 8, 2013, at 2:37 PM, cr...@gtek.biz wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 13:17, "Chris Murphy"
> said:
>
> Thanks for responding Chris!
>
>> On a 512byte physical and logical sector hard drive, the messages can be
>> ignored.
>> Alignment isn&
On a 512byte physical and logical sector hard drive, the messages can be
ignored. Alignment isn't an issue.
For SSDs which effectively lie about their physical sector size, the
consequences of miss alignment are variable the firmware.
Chris Murphy
+table, and not clear the MBR, and then reinstall grub.
On Apple hardware, Apple's boot loader for OS X is an EFI boot loader. So if
your firmware isn't UEFI based, I don't suppose you can use Apple's bootloader,
you'd maybe need to use GRUB's xnu bootloader.
Chris Murphy
rtition scheme hasn't been used in a long time, unless
this is somehow specific to Hackintoshes.
Chris Murphy
On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:04 AM, sky wrote:
> can you help me?
Resize the partition with parted. Resize the file system with resize2fs.
Chris Murphy
On Mar 4, 2013, at 7:55 AM, yzn严哲南 wrote:
> You should reboot now before
> making further changes.
> How to solve the problem?
Reboot. Or use partprobe.
Chris Murphy
x27;raid' on MBR sets the partition type code to FDh. 'lvm' sets it to 8Eh.
So the flags are parted flags. They are not necessarily partition scheme flags.
Chris Murphy
This is parted-3.1-9.fc18.x86_64
On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> What is, and why does parted insert ~80 bytes of code to the MBR boot loader
> region of a disk when that region contains zeros?
> Example:
>
> [root@localhost liveuser]# dd if=/dev/sda coun
t and hangs.
Chris Murphy
;t like GPT and that this
is the source of the problem.
Chris Murphy
If it's BIOS hardware why are you using GPT instead of MBR?
Chris Murphy
Andrew Boie wrote:
>Hello,
>
>
>I'm trying to use parted to create a GPT partition table on the Samsung XE700T
>slate. On this specific device, after I do so and reboot, the device always
&
On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> 3. In this particular example, the question probably shouldn't even be asked,
> because the UEFI spec pretty clearly says that a valid legacy MBR means it is
> not a GPT disk.
Bump.
This is a pretty significant bug, for a
e no way to handle this situation either correctly, or
elegantly.
Chris Murphy
e no way to handle this situation either correctly, or
elegantly.
Chris Murphy
pretty good odds not one would have landed
near the Windows basic data GUID. And yet with GPT, we have a situation that
did not exist with MBR: a lack of distinction between linux (0x83) and Windows
(0x07) partition types, despite having comparatively infinite alternatives to
choose from.
Chris Murphy
it was before, as unlike
> Linux, Windows7 doesn't seem to like it when we restore an image into
> a partition that's bigger than the original.
gparted will resize/move NTFS volumes. That's the part I think you've missed,
is that you just changed the partition size, without resizing the file system.
Chris Murphy
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> dd if=/dev/sda3 of=abnew.img
> dd if=/dev/zero of=abnew.img seek=30 \
> count=1269503 conv=notrunc
> cp --sparse=always abnew.img abnew-sparse.img
> tar jcvSf - abnew-sparse.img > abnew.img abnew-sparse.img.tar.bz2
6500024
ctly divisible by 1024 so I'm using 512
byte blocks.
Chris Murphy
f it's useful I can make an image of the new Apple Boot, fully updated, which
still does not cause the problem, zero out the middle leaving +14KB and -14KB,
for comparison to the original abort producing one.
It's just so unlikely anyone else would end up with such a situation.
Chris Murphy
Summary: Parted crashes when listing contents of a GPT disk containing an
"Apple Boot" partition. Previously it was thought this was due to presence of
Apple's new encrypted logical volume scheme. The crash so far only occurs with
a particular Apple Boot partition located here:
http://dl.dropbox
is a much
larger number of affected people.
I'll report back once I've done this regression.
Chris Murphy
was: parted 2.1 crash with (encrypted) Apple Core Storage partition
On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> 565M is the final size here. I'm uploading to dropbox and
On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>
>>
>> 565M is the final size here. I'm uploading to dropbox and will post a
>> public URL once it's done.
>
> Useful in any case.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/AppleBoot-sparse.img.tar.xz
OK, I'm bailing on the debugging because parted-debuginfo isn't signed and
won't install. :-\
On Feb 8, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> -- copy that image with "cp --sparse=always f.img f-sparse.img" (GNU cp)
> on a file system that supports sparse files.
du reports it does from 620M t
On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Thanks, but without symbols, that's no more than you posted before.
>
> When I run gdb on fedora or RHEL against tools/libs with no symbols,
> at start-up, it suggests that I run a "debuginfo-install " command
> for each application and l
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "list" prints a few lines around the point of abort, (not useful
> immediately, when failing via abort). Usually you'll run "up" repeatedly,
> until you find the PED_ASSERT line that provoked the failed assertion.
> Once there, "list" is useful,
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> If it makes CentOS6.2's parted abort, then I will be happy to work on
>> it. Can you install debug symbols and invoke parted via gdb?
>>
>> gd
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> If it makes CentOS6.2's parted abort, then I will be happy to work on
> it. Can you install debug symbols and invoke parted via gdb?
>
>gdb --args parted
>
> Then type "run".
> If it crashes, type "backtrace" (aka "bt") and post the re
d to do a clean install of Lion again, and see if a totally
unmodified version of it causes the problem; and if and which update instigates
the problem.
Chris Murphy
th of data on that partition, in that case. Otherwise, it's around
6G compressed.
Copying the whole disk would probably be pretty big, as there are three
operating systems on the disk. I'm thinking you may only want the encrypted
partition. This would be much easier if 10.7 ran in VirtualBox.
Chris Murphy
like RHEL 6 just needs to move to a
newer version of parted, I'm not sure which one though.
If the dd routine makes sense, how big of a structure is the fs-probe looking
for that I need to remove? I'm assuming the probing is at the beginning of the
partition, but I'm not sure how much data it's looking for.
Chris Murphy
On Feb 8, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> text output trying to run "parted -l", booted from CentOS 6.2 LiveDVD:
> [centoslive@livedvd ~]$ su
> [root@livedvd centoslive]# parted -l
> Backtrace has 14 calls on stack:
> 14: /lib64/libparted-2.1.so.0(ped_
artition type GUID for a core storage partition is
53746F72-6167-11AA-AA11-00306543ECAC.
Thanks,
Chris Murphy
On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> So something has changed, and the jhdr_size, can apparently be 4096 bytes on
> a 512 byte sector disk. Again, I don't know at what point Disk Utility
> chooses to go from a 512 byte to 4096 byte journal header, but it seem
ical
media).
So something has changed, and the jhdr_size, can apparently be 4096 bytes on a
512 byte sector disk. Again, I don't know at what point Disk Utility chooses to
go from a 512 byte to 4096 byte journal header, but it seems it's related to
volume size. Not sector size.
Chris Murphy
ple's Disk Utility,
the jhdr_size is 4096 bytes. Same virtual machine, same underlying drive.
Chris Murphy
an AF 512e disk. Mac OS X sees the sectors as 512
>> bytes. The VM sees them as 512 bytes as well. I don't understand what
>> the error is about.
>
> It's complaining that _HfsJJournalHeader.jhdr_size != sector_size (512).
> What is its value for your disk?
Using hfsdebug, it reports jhdr_size is 4096 bytes.
Chris Murphy
y
> (and would I be taking the time to restore it) if it affected
> only some type of file system that no one uses anymore?
I don't know.
Chris Murphy
On Dec 24, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> FYI, I've begun the process of restoring the FAT and HFS
>> file system resizing capability to the parted package.
>
> Which variants of HFS are supported? I
It only resizes jhfs+ and jhfsx.
Chris Murphy
ag being set on linux /boot
partitions. So I'd say, don't set it in normal installed that don't require
gptmbr.bin.
Chris Murphy
___
bug-parted mailing list
bug-parted@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:37 AM, Keshav P R wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 20:46, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> I was also just wondering if we (Fedora) should be setting legacy_boot
> on /boot partitions instead of the boot flag, since the latter writes an EFI
> system GUID to the partition type.
>
>
>
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:15:28PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Is it correct that the parted 'legacy_boot' flag sets the partition
>> attribute "Legacy BIOS Bootable" bit? And is there any case where it wo
ed
'legacy_boot' flag on an EFI System partition. But the LiveCD does not. That
discrepancy is a likely bug. However, I'm wondering which one is incorrect. It
doesn't seem like the EFI System partition should have this attribute set, if
indeed the flag sets
as they did on MBR disks, for
linux boot partitions. This erroneously makes them "EFI System" partitions.
Chris Murphy
___
bug-parted mailing list
bug-parted@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
brid MBRs using 07 for linux
filesystems instead of 83, because the hybrid MBR is being created based on the
GPT's partition types, rather than from scratch. So this choice to use an
existing partition type GUID for BDP, is causing a shift away from MBR code 83
for linux filesystems to code
#x27;s been proposed.
What's the delay on supporting the proposed GUID for linux partition types? Or
an alternative?
Chris Murphy
___
bug-parted mailing list
bug-parted@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
62 matches
Mail list logo
