On Tuesday 04 Oct 2011 17:18:18 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 Oct 2011 06:27:50 Paul Hartman wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 04 Oct 2011 04:39:45 Adam Carter wrote: > >> >> If the data is important, I'd use ddrescue to create an image of the > >> >> drive, then run testdisk over that image to see if it can untangle > >> >> the partition table mess. Both are in portage. > >> > > >> > Well, that's the thing: I'm not sure that there is a mess. At least > >> > not as far as parted is concerned, which can read the partition table > >> > properly. > >> > > >> > I suspect that fdisk (unlike parted) is not capable of reading the > >> > device correctly. > >> > > >> > I forgot to say that when mounted the USB stick shows not partitions > >> > (i.e. there is no sdb1, sdb2, etc.) To access the fs I must do > >> > something like: > >> > > >> > pmount /dev/sdb > >> > > >> > and then all is lists under /media/sdb. It is like a big floppy. > >> > >> I think that's your answer. The "partition table" looks funny because > >> it isn't one. :) It is somewhat common. I've had some myself that are > >> like that. > > > > If there isn't a partition table, then why fdisk sees /dev/sdb1-4 with > > somewhat strange ID types? > > It's misinterpreting the data that happens to be there because it > makes the assumption that it's a partition table even though it's not. > > You can create a real partition table on that device and reformat, if > you want. (Note that some flash-based devices suffer degraded > performance if you repartition or reformat them because they come with > specially-aligned FAT tables from the factory)
Interesting! I didn't know that. I have repartitioned USB sticks in the past, but did not notice any change in performance - to be honest I didn't measure it. I assume then that if I were to re-partition for any reason I would need to stick to exactly the same start & finish shown by parted. Re-formatting it ought to be OK though, as long as the fat16 shown by parted is correct. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
