On 7/24/06, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your quick reaction Yuval.
On Monday 24 July 2006 19:42, Yuval Fledel wrote:
> > The two are completely similar, except that the first is successful
> > and the second leads to corruption.
>
> I noticed that the original partition was not the same in both cases.
> example:
> Vista: /dev/sda1 * 1 1217 9775521 7
> HPFS/NTFS
> 2000: /dev/sda1 * 1 2550 20482843+ 7
> HPFS/NTFS
No that is not correct (Vista will not even install into less than 16
MB :-)
Sorry, I copied the wrong line for Vista.
/dev/sda1 * 1 2550 20481024 7 HPFS/NTFS
20482843+ is different than 20481024. I know for sure that when I
repartitioned my disk, and entered the same number, only that it
showed with no +, Windows no longer agreed to boot. Returning the
partition table to what it was saved the day.
It also feels strange because I did not change the starting sector and the
end sector was well bigger than the new size of the NTFS partition.
When you work with a "cluster" unit, fdisk sometimes move the starting
sector. This is because a cluster may contain several sectors, and the
original starting sector may not be cluster-aligned. When the first
sector moves, the tools and the kernel driver can no longer mount the
partition.
Ah, I see 1.13.1 has just hit unstable. I will test with that and let you
know.
Thanks, that would be helpful.
--
Yuval Fledel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
