Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
> Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple > times at different stages of the boot: > ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. > no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? It comes from code that checks for partition type on device. Usually it means you have no media inserted in removable drive (unless you really happen to have damaged disk). Do you per chance have SCSI removable disk (Jaz, Zip or like)? SCSI driver pretends it has disk when it really has none which results in flood of messages when other drivers try to read from it. I even intended to "fix" it a while back (a _long_ while back :) but never was bothered enough to do it. I'll get a look when time permits. OTOH it has been this way at lease since 8.2 so I wonder what happened suddenly that people no complaint. (no, I do not run full cooker, just new kernel compiled myself) cheers -andrey ... looking over code ... hmm, it may take more than just this evening unfortunately ... BTW this covers bug 930 as well (exactly my case)
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
I have found that my parallel Zip device is causing the ldm_validate_partition_table() error. If the Zip drive is connected but doesn't have a zip inserted, just try to run: find /dev/scsi ...and you will see the error. This is also the origin of the slow login, because at the first user login, devfsd is setting owner for devices, and causes the ldm_validate_partition_table error on the zip device. The error takes about 1.5 sec, and is repeated 3 times, so the login takes about 5 seconds. If I unplug the Zip, everything is OK: fast login, and no ldm_validate_partition_table error. Allan Mee a écrit: Thanx that's what I figured - but given that I've had overlapping partitions once before, I didn't want to take ANY chances - I really don't fancy putting more than 60 Gb of data back onto my h/d (even though most of my data is backed up, I know some recent data isn't). I'm glad I said to PowerQuest - question what would have happened had I clicked "Yes - ok fix it!"? Allan From: Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:23:17 -0500 Allan Mee wrote: > Do I have another problem? I just installed a trial version of Partition > Magic 8.0 - I was using versions 3 and 6 previously. It says something like > I have an extended partition that crosses the 1024 Cylinder boundary but is > NOT marked as an extendedX partition - and warns me that I may lose data - > question is do I want or need Partition Magic to fix it? > Now, I only created ONE partition with win98's FDISK - gave it 75% of my 120 > Gb drive and let Linux automatically sort out the other 30-odd Gb for > itself. So any extended partitions belong to Linux. Should I let Partition > Magic mark this partition as an extendedX partition or just leave it? > Please advice me. Only if you use W9x or ME might the extended partition type be relevant to possible data loss, and only if there are M$ partitions beyond cyl 1023 that must be accessed while winDOS is booted. Powerquest is being a good little Micro$erf warning you that the non-standard M$ 0Fh extended type is not in place. Learn more at URI below. -- "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."William James Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Thanx that's what I figured - but given that I've had overlapping partitions once before, I didn't want to take ANY chances - I really don't fancy putting more than 60 Gb of data back onto my h/d (even though most of my data is backed up, I know some recent data isn't). I'm glad I said to PowerQuest - question what would have happened had I clicked "Yes - ok fix it!"? Allan From: Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:23:17 -0500 Allan Mee wrote: > Do I have another problem? I just installed a trial version of Partition > Magic 8.0 - I was using versions 3 and 6 previously. It says something like > I have an extended partition that crosses the 1024 Cylinder boundary but is > NOT marked as an extendedX partition - and warns me that I may lose data - > question is do I want or need Partition Magic to fix it? > Now, I only created ONE partition with win98's FDISK - gave it 75% of my 120 > Gb drive and let Linux automatically sort out the other 30-odd Gb for > itself. So any extended partitions belong to Linux. Should I let Partition > Magic mark this partition as an extendedX partition or just leave it? > Please advice me. Only if you use W9x or ME might the extended partition type be relevant to possible data loss, and only if there are M$ partitions beyond cyl 1023 that must be accessed while winDOS is booted. Powerquest is being a good little Micro$erf warning you that the non-standard M$ 0Fh extended type is not in place. Learn more at URI below. -- "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."William James Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Allan Mee wrote: > Do I have another problem? I just installed a trial version of Partition > Magic 8.0 - I was using versions 3 and 6 previously. It says something like > I have an extended partition that crosses the 1024 Cylinder boundary but is > NOT marked as an extendedX partition - and warns me that I may lose data - > question is do I want or need Partition Magic to fix it? > Now, I only created ONE partition with win98's FDISK - gave it 75% of my 120 > Gb drive and let Linux automatically sort out the other 30-odd Gb for > itself. So any extended partitions belong to Linux. Should I let Partition > Magic mark this partition as an extendedX partition or just leave it? > Please advice me. Only if you use W9x or ME might the extended partition type be relevant to possible data loss, and only if there are M$ partitions beyond cyl 1023 that must be accessed while winDOS is booted. Powerquest is being a good little Micro$erf warning you that the non-standard M$ 0Fh extended type is not in place. Learn more at URI below. -- "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."William James Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Do I have another problem? I just installed a trial version of Partition Magic 8.0 - I was using versions 3 and 6 previously. It says something like I have an extended partition that crosses the 1024 Cylinder boundary but is NOT marked as an extendedX partition - and warns me that I may lose data - question is do I want or need Partition Magic to fix it? Now, I only created ONE partition with win98's FDISK - gave it 75% of my 120 Gb drive and let Linux automatically sort out the other 30-odd Gb for itself. So any extended partitions belong to Linux. Should I let Partition Magic mark this partition as an extendedX partition or just leave it? Please advice me. Thx in anticipation, Allan From: Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:32:43 -0500 Pixel wrote: > Ron Stodden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Pascal Cavy wrote: > > > I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. I have noticed > > > several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains about overlapping > > > partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for ex the first > > > primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition starting at 788 > > > too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's still true on MDK9.1B1 > > > ? > > All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the extended chain > > for Windows. Partition Magic does this. > "must be" is truly wrong. There's no such things as a specification > for this. Not a specification, a tradition. DOS & DOS-heritage partitioning tools typically fail if they find the logical chain order doesn't match the physical placement order. > windows tools do create non-ordered logical-partitions linked list I've yet to see one. > > On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition > > creation time. NAICT, they, as well as most others, create MBR table entries in order of availability (FIFO). If previously created were primaries A, B & C, using table positions 1, 2, & 3, after which B was deleted, most partitioning tools will reuse table postition 2 when primary partition D is later created even though physically placed beyond C. > > This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle > > this. > wrong. AFAIK windows doesn't (didn't?) like many things, esp. when > there is more than one primary partition (why??) M$ programmers with blinders that don't foresee *and* accomodate the possibility of more than one OS installed per device or system. > > Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to > > Windows. Usually this happens only when a partitioning tool creates a partition that does not start on a cylinder boundary. I'm not aware of any non-Linux tools capable of such behavior. > you mean FAT partitions created under linux? Regardless whether any format at all. > AFAIK there's a pb regarding the boot code which is not written > correctly when windows is installing on a linux-pre-formatted > partition. > > The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition Magic (which > > does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to Windows > > partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also choose to > > dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. The best solution short of separate disks is to use a tool that understands multiple formats. The more formats the better. Generally this means just about any tool that is *not* distributed with any OS, and includes Partition Magic among many others. Understanding formats is independent of partitioning, and really just a convenience to the user of the partitioning tool. A partition can be created without any real format, having the "format" merely designated in the table but not in the partition's data area. Once in the table, any smart formatter can change the table entry to match whatever format is actually applied to the partition's data area. > > Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all > > partitions are created and exist in start cylinder order. > wow, i wonder why you write "very carefully" since it's the default > behaviour, unless you mess around quite a lot with your partitions. Maybe by carefully he means avoiding Linux fdisk, which throws out table entries beyond hdx16. ;-) > as for me, i think diskdrake is powerful enough As pertains to its use during installation, I certainly don't. It needs to be sm
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
My problem with all this is that as far as I know I DID NOT DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD WRITE TO OR CHANGE THE PARTITION TABLE - these messages just started appearing one day. This is the same partition table which has been working OK for both the windows boot partition and the Mandrake boot partition with no problems or complaints.. so why would it start complaining about this multiple times whenever I boot my system? I WILL take a look at the partition table later this week to see if indeed there is a problem with it. Just weird that it would start doing this all of a sudden after loading assorted cooker updates. That's what prompted my initial question which started this thread. V. On Tuesday 14 January 2003 09:48 am, Pascal Cavy wrote: > I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. > > I have noticed several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains > about overlapping partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary > (for ex the first primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented > partition starting at 788 too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if > it's still true on MDK9.1B1 ? > > Pascal Cavy > > Le Mardi 14 Janvier 2003 15:35, Allan Mee a écrit : > > hmmm I wonder if you have got/had the same problem as me - Windoze > > reported an error in disk size reported and "fixed it" during a defrag > > session - then I got a message similar to yours (I can't remeber the > > exact message) and some utilities (including fips 2.0) said I had > > overlapping partitions - yet I had done an automatic install (I just > > fdisk x% for Windows and let Linux automatically take care of the > > remainder (120 GB - x%) space - so far I have been unable to reproduce > > the circumstances but I now view MS Scandisk and Defrag with more > > suspicion (and caution) than ever! Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? > > >Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:33:20 -0800 > > > > > >Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >> > > >> Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at > > >>different stages of the boot: > > >> > > >>ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. > > >> > > >>no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? > > > > > >only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to > > >register with the bios. > > >or crashing ( ancient drive ) > > >if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably cause > > >same error. > > > > _ > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Felix Miata wrote: Pixel wrote: Pascal Cavy wrote: All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the extended chain for Windows. Partition Magic does this. "must be" is truly wrong. There's no such things as a specification for this. Not a specification, a tradition. DOS & DOS-heritage partitioning tools typically fail if they find the logical chain order doesn't match the physical placement order. windows tools do create non-ordered logical-partitions linked list I've yet to see one. On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition creation time. NAICT, they, as well as most others, create MBR table entries in order of availability (FIFO). If previously created were primaries A, B & C, using table positions 1, 2, & 3, after which B was deleted, most partitioning tools will reuse table postition 2 when primary partition D is later created even though physically placed beyond C. Aha! A good example, This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle this. wrong. AFAIK windows doesn't (didn't?) like many things, esp. when there is more than one primary partition (why??) M$ programmers with blinders that don't foresee *and* accomodate the possibility of more than one OS installed per device or system. Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to Windows. Usually this happens only when a partitioning tool creates a partition that does not start on a cylinder boundary. I'm not aware of any non-Linux tools capable of such behavior. you mean FAT partitions created under linux? Regardless whether any format at all. AFAIK there's a pb regarding the boot code which is not written correctly when windows is installing on a linux-pre-formatted partition. The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition Magic (which does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to Windows partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also choose to dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. The best solution short of separate disks is to use a tool that understands multiple formats. The more formats the better. Generally this means just about any tool that is *not* distributed with any OS, and includes Partition Magic among many others. Understanding formats is independent of partitioning, and really just a convenience to the user of the partitioning tool. A partition can be created without any real format, having the "format" merely designated in the table but not in the partition's data area. Once in the table, any smart formatter can change the table entry to match whatever format is actually applied to the partition's data area. A good point. And strategy.Only ever create partitions with PM. If the file system you want in that partition is not one in PM's repertoire, just use the correct one of Linux's many mkfs commands on that partition. Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all partitions are created and exist in start cylinder order. wow, i wonder why you write "very carefully" since it's the default behaviour, unless you mess around quite a lot with your partitions. Maybe by carefully he means avoiding Linux fdisk, which throws out table entries beyond hdx16. ;-)/ No, I meant carefully watching the start cylinders to maintain sequence. To insert a partition between two others (copy off, then) delete all the partitions above that point, then create the new, then recreate (or copy back) the deleted ones with creation order == start cylinder order. as for me, i think diskdrake is powerful enough As pertains to its use during installation, I certainly don't. It needs to be smart enough to create HPFS fstab entries when type 07h partitions are in fact formatted HPFS, rather than useless NTFS fstab entries. There is no partition copy, such as is needed above. The copy can be hardware oriented, dd-like, ie not aware of which file system is being copied other than knowing the block (cluster) size. -- Ron. [Melbourne, Australia] 20030106 updates now available for Fastest Mandrake downloader (English-only) from: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ronst/
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Pixel wrote: > Ron Stodden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Pascal Cavy wrote: > > > I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. I have noticed > > > several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains about overlapping > > > partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for ex the first > > > primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition starting at 788 > > > too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's still true on MDK9.1B1 > > > ? > > All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the >extended chain > > for Windows. Partition Magic does this. > "must be" is truly wrong. There's no such things as a specification > for this. Not a specification, a tradition. DOS & DOS-heritage partitioning tools typically fail if they find the logical chain order doesn't match the physical placement order. > windows tools do create non-ordered logical-partitions linked list I've yet to see one. > > On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition > > creation time. NAICT, they, as well as most others, create MBR table entries in order of availability (FIFO). If previously created were primaries A, B & C, using table positions 1, 2, & 3, after which B was deleted, most partitioning tools will reuse table postition 2 when primary partition D is later created even though physically placed beyond C. > > This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle > > this. > wrong. AFAIK windows doesn't (didn't?) like many things, esp. when > there is more than one primary partition (why??) M$ programmers with blinders that don't foresee *and* accomodate the possibility of more than one OS installed per device or system. > > Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to > > Windows. Usually this happens only when a partitioning tool creates a partition that does not start on a cylinder boundary. I'm not aware of any non-Linux tools capable of such behavior. > you mean FAT partitions created under linux? Regardless whether any format at all. > AFAIK there's a pb regarding the boot code which is not written > correctly when windows is installing on a linux-pre-formatted > partition. > > The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition Magic >(which > > does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to Windows > > partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also choose to > > dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. The best solution short of separate disks is to use a tool that understands multiple formats. The more formats the better. Generally this means just about any tool that is *not* distributed with any OS, and includes Partition Magic among many others. Understanding formats is independent of partitioning, and really just a convenience to the user of the partitioning tool. A partition can be created without any real format, having the "format" merely designated in the table but not in the partition's data area. Once in the table, any smart formatter can change the table entry to match whatever format is actually applied to the partition's data area. > > Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all > > partitions are created and exist in start cylinder order. > wow, i wonder why you write "very carefully" since it's the default > behaviour, unless you mess around quite a lot with your partitions. Maybe by carefully he means avoiding Linux fdisk, which throws out table entries beyond hdx16. ;-) > as for me, i think diskdrake is powerful enough As pertains to its use during installation, I certainly don't. It needs to be smart enough to create HPFS fstab entries when type 07h partitions are in fact formatted HPFS, rather than useless NTFS fstab entries. -- "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."William James Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Pixel wrote: Ron Stodden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the extended chain for Windows. Partition Magic does this. "must be" is truly wrong. There's no such things as a specification for this. Sad, isn't it? I am quoting verbatim from the PM manual, and what it says is in agreement with my experience. windows tools do create non-ordered logical-partitions linked list That would surprise me. On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition creation time. This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle this. wrong. AFAIK windows doesn't (didn't?) like many things, esp. when there is more than one primary partition (why??) Never struck that. There would usually be at least two primary paritions on a windows drive - C and extended. Linux partition managers also fail to set up the CHS numbers to reflect the LBA numbers. ?? parted does a real good job on this, bothering you if it can't find out the good CHS numbers for your drive. diskdrake doesn't bother much since CHS is not used anymore, except by old OSs (esp. DOS) If they disagree PM offers to correct things, so they are used, and you never know when you might have to fall back on DOS.Many floppy-based utilities use DOS, eg the Partition Magic rescue floppies, so LBA => CHS must be enforced. see http://www.mandrakelinux.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gi/docs/Partition-ends-after-end-of-disk.txt?rev=1.5 Partition-ends-after-end-of-disk is only one of the many EOD possibilities for the last extended partition that are not properly checked for. That's why I always create a minimum size ext2 unused sentinel partition at the end of the extended partition - saves LOTS of grief.Anyone that doesn't is playing with fire. Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to Windows. you mean FAT partitions created under linux? No, I meant drives where the logical partitions are not chained in increasing start cylinder order. AFAIK there's a pb regarding the boot code which is not written correctly when windows is installing on a linux-pre-formatted partition. The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition Magic (which does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to Windows partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also choose to dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all partitions are created and exist in start cylinder order. wow, i wonder why you write "very carefully" since it's the default behaviour, unless you mess around quite a lot with your partitions. default - not in my experience just two days ago. It is long past time that the Linux community or FSF produced a GPL all-OS-compatible Partition Manager that includes resizing, copying, deleting, undeleting, checking, formatting, converting (retaining file integrity), labelling. setting active, defragging, defragging by file-oriented copy out format copy back, info, bad sector handling, partition hiding, resize root capacity, resize clusters, etc. wow... i didn't receive many patches on diskdrake from you, nor many contributions on parted mailing list ;p I did check it out early, and found it too immature to be trusted. as for me, i think diskdrake is powerful enough, and other tools need more badly our development time. You are correct - it is an industry compatibility problem, but there is no properly funded regulating body over the whole industry, except ISO, which, strangely, and to its shame, seems to have so far ignored this problem/opportunity. (and since fat is nearly dead, time working on it (like "resize clusters") is a waste) I think Linux will have to retain the ability to mount FAT32 partitions for a very long time yet, plus whatever other file systems Microsoft has and will invent. -- Ron. [Melbourne, Australia] 20030106 updates now available for Fastest Mandrake downloader (English-only) from: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ronst/
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Ron Stodden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pascal Cavy wrote: > > I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. I have noticed > > several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains about overlapping > > partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for ex the first > > primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition starting at 788 > > too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's still true on MDK9.1B1 > > ? > > All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the > extended chain > for Windows. Partition Magic does this. "must be" is truly wrong. There's no such things as a specification for this. windows tools do create non-ordered logical-partitions linked list > > On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition > creation time. > This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle > this. wrong. AFAIK windows doesn't (didn't?) like many things, esp. when there is more than one primary partition (why??) > Linux partition managers also fail to set up the CHS numbers to reflect the > LBA numbers. ?? parted does a real good job on this, bothering you if it can't find out the good CHS numbers for your drive. diskdrake doesn't bother much since CHS is not used anymore, except by old OSs (esp. DOS) see http://www.mandrakelinux.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gi/docs/Partition-ends-after-end-of-disk.txt?rev=1.5 > > Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to > Windows. you mean FAT partitions created under linux? AFAIK there's a pb regarding the boot code which is not written correctly when windows is installing on a linux-pre-formatted partition. > > The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition > Magic (which > does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to > Windows > partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also > choose to > dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. > > Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all > partitions are created > and exist in start cylinder order. wow, i wonder why you write "very carefully" since it's the default behaviour, unless you mess around quite a lot with your partitions. > It is long past time that the Linux community or FSF produced a GPL > all-OS-compatible > Partition Manager that includes resizing, copying, deleting, undeleting, > checking, formatting, > converting (retaining file integrity), labelling. setting active, defragging, > defragging by file-oriented copy out format copy back, info, bad sector > handling, > partition hiding, resize root capacity, resize clusters, etc. wow... i didn't receive many patches on diskdrake from you, nor many contributions on parted mailing list ;p as for me, i think diskdrake is powerful enough, and other tools need more badly our development time. (and since fat is nearly dead, time working on it (like "resize clusters") is a waste)
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Pascal Cavy wrote: I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. I have noticed several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains about overlapping partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for ex the first primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition starting at 788 too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's still true on MDK9.1B1 ? All logical partitions must be in cylinder order in the various MBRs along the extended chain for Windows. Partition Magic does this. On the other hand, Linux utilities create MBR entries in order of partition creation time. This is true for fdisk and cfdisk, to my knowledge. Windows cannot handle this. Linux partition managers also fail to set up the CHS numbers to reflect the LBA numbers. Accordingly, Linux-created partitions cannot be guaranteed to be acceptable to Windows. The best solution I know is never to create partitions except with Partition Magic (which does not support ext3, Reiserfs, etc.) or you must dedicate a hard drive to Windows partitions only if you need to double-boot with Windows. You could also choose to dedicate an entire machine to Windows only. Yes, you can also use cfdisk etc very carefully, making sure that all partitions are created and exist in start cylinder order. It is long past time that the Linux community or FSF produced a GPL all-OS-compatible Partition Manager that includes resizing, copying, deleting, undeleting, checking, formatting, converting (retaining file integrity), labelling. setting active, defragging, defragging by file-oriented copy out format copy back, info, bad sector handling, partition hiding, resize root capacity, resize clusters, etc. -- Ron. [Melbourne, Australia] 20030106 updates now available for Fastest Mandrake downloader (English-only) from: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ronst/
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
I also get this error. It appears twice when I login on the console, and twice when I log off. I'm joining the strace output of the process "login", as well as my partition tables. (I got my partition tables in diskdrake, button "more") An idea I'm just having. I got this error twice, after having plugged two different USB storage devices, then powered them off. The icons have appeared on the desktop when I plugged them, but did not disappear when I powered them off. So maybe two invalid partitions remains as /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2. Maybe these non existant partitions cause the ldm_validate_partition_table errors ? Hope this will help. Vincent Meyer, MD a écrit: Hi, Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at different stages of the boot: ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? V. partition_table.hda.bz2 Description: Binary data partition_table.hdb.bz2 Description: Binary data partition_table.hdd.bz2 Description: Binary data login.strace.bz2 Description: Binary data
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Whoops, sorry - I jes clicked Reply-To and didn't check. But my point is valid? Allan From: Pascal Cavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Allan Mee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:08:23 +0100 hum you forgot to reply to the cooker list. I am not the maintainer of any partitioning package :) just a tester Pascal Le Mardi 14 Janvier 2003 16:28, vous avez écrit : > If you are right, then it is a situation that needs to be sorted - and > quickly! The only reason I didn't do an "expert" installation and manually > FDISK/Partition my hard-disk was because I assumed the OS would be less > error-prone than me - I certainly don't want to find I have to replace tens > of GB of data at some future stage. Having deleted all my partitions and > started from scratch after the last time, I checked with every utility I > have (various partition managers, fdisk, fips etc. etc.) and they all say > the HD partitions are ok - but my point is, installing Linux is hoary > enough when it goes as it should - but any bug in the partitioning software > is potentially disastrous - and certainly won't do Linux any favours! > Question - has anybody used the Ranish partition manager? It allows up to > 32 primary partitions (instead of the usual 4) and can semmingly handle all > OSs which can boot beyond 8GB. > I'm tempted to try it - but would like to talk with anyone else who has > tried it first. > Allan > > > > > > From: Pascal Cavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Allan Mee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? > >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:48:37 +0100 > > > > > >I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. > > > >I have noticed several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains > >about > >overlapping partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for > >ex > >the first primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition > >starting at 788 too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's > > still true on MDK9.1B1 ? > > > >Pascal Cavy > > > >Le Mardi 14 Janvier 2003 15:35, Allan Mee a écrit : > > > hmmm I wonder if you have got/had the same problem as me - Windoze > > > >reported > > > > > an error in disk size reported and "fixed it" during a defrag session - > > > then I got a message similar to yours (I can't remeber the exact > > > >message) > > > > > and some utilities (including fips 2.0) said I had overlapping > > > >partitions - > > > > > yet I had done an automatic install (I just fdisk x% for Windows and > > > let Linux automatically take care of the remainder (120 GB - x%) space > > > - so > > > >far > > > > > I have been unable to reproduce the circumstances but I now view MS > > > Scandisk and Defrag with more suspicion (and caution) than ever! > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? > > > >Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:33:20 -0800 > > > > > > > >Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: > > > >>Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times > > > >at > > > > > >>different stages of the boot: > > > >> > > > >>ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. > > > >> > > > >>no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? > > > > > > > >only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to > > > >register with the bios. > > > >or crashing ( ancient drive ) > > > >if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably > > > > cause same error. > > > > > > _ > > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > >-- > >Pascal Cavy - VMF > >__ > >Running 3 days, 20:53, 4 users, load average: 0.86, 0.59, 0.62 > >(gcc version 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2-4mdk)) > >Kernel Linux version 2.4.20-2mdkenterprise > > _ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Pascal Cavy - VMF __ Running 3 days, 22:17, 4 users, load average: 0.43, 0.43, 0.51 (gcc version 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2-4mdk)) Kernel Linux version 2.4.20-2mdkenterprise _ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
I suspect diskdrake to have a bug in certain conditions. I have noticed several mdk installations where fdisk or cfdisk complains about overlapping partitions, or partitions not ending on cylinder boundary (for ex the first primary ending on 788 for exemple and the extented partition starting at 788 too !). It was the case on MDK90, I dont know if it's still true on MDK9.1B1 ? Pascal Cavy Le Mardi 14 Janvier 2003 15:35, Allan Mee a écrit : > hmmm I wonder if you have got/had the same problem as me - Windoze reported > an error in disk size reported and "fixed it" during a defrag session - > then I got a message similar to yours (I can't remeber the exact message) > and some utilities (including fips 2.0) said I had overlapping partitions - > yet I had done an automatic install (I just fdisk x% for Windows and let > Linux automatically take care of the remainder (120 GB - x%) space - so far > I have been unable to reproduce the circumstances but I now view MS > Scandisk and Defrag with more suspicion (and caution) than ever! > Allan > > > > > > > From: "J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? > >Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:33:20 -0800 > > > >Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at > >>different stages of the boot: > >> > >>ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. > >> > >>no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? > > > >only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to > >register with the bios. > >or crashing ( ancient drive ) > >if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably cause > >same error. > > _ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- Pascal Cavy - VMF __ Running 3 days, 20:53, 4 users, load average: 0.86, 0.59, 0.62 (gcc version 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2-4mdk)) Kernel Linux version 2.4.20-2mdkenterprise
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
hmmm I wonder if you have got/had the same problem as me - Windoze reported an error in disk size reported and "fixed it" during a defrag session - then I got a message similar to yours (I can't remeber the exact message) and some utilities (including fips 2.0) said I had overlapping partitions - yet I had done an automatic install (I just fdisk x% for Windows and let Linux automatically take care of the remainder (120 GB - x%) space - so far I have been unable to reproduce the circumstances but I now view MS Scandisk and Defrag with more suspicion (and caution) than ever! Allan From: "J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that? Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:33:20 -0800 Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: Hi, Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at different stages of the boot: ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to register with the bios. or crashing ( ancient drive ) if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably cause same error. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
First time I saw this was after I installed a bunch of updates, which included the apm update. The drive doesn't have a suspend to disk file or partition - could it be related to this? Drive checks fine with both windows and linux, and ez-smart running on the windows side things that other than running low on disk space (which is true) that the drive is OK. Wish I knew where this message originates. V. On Monday 13 January 2003 08:33 pm, J. Greenlees wrote: > Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at > > different stages of the boot: > > > > ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. > > > > no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? > > only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to > register with the bios. > or crashing ( ancient drive ) > if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably cause > same error.
Re: [Cooker] ldm_validate_partition_table - what's that?
Vincent Meyer, MD wrote: Hi, Getting this message whenever I boot up the machine, multiple times at different stages of the boot: ldm_validate_partition_table(): disk read failed. no idea why or what it means. What other info will help? only time I've seen disk read errors was when the drive was failing to register with the bios. or crashing ( ancient drive ) if your partition table got damaged at all that could concievably cause same error.
