Re: Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Blars Blarson]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I don't know if this is relevant, but some IDE controllers only
>recognize the first 128 GB(binary) = 137*10^9 bytes.

I've heard of one that only supportds dma on the smaller disks,
and non-dma mode will work with larger disks.

-- 
Blars Blarson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With Microsoft, failure is not an option.  It is a standard feature.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[John Summerfield]

Rick Thomas wrote:
Controllers that don't believe in disks larger than 137 GB(decimal) 
report any disk larger than that as being exactly 137 GB in size.  
This is probably why cfdisk et al are telling you that your partitions 
go beyond the end of the disk -- as far as they know, the disk ends 
before the beginning of the partition: at 137 GB.

It's a good sign that Windows can see the tail of the disk.  That 
means that the controller is capable of seeing it, even if Linux isn't 
forcing the right mode to make it do so.  It's also a hopeful sign 
that Knoppix can mount the partitions on the tail of the disk.

To see if the problem really lies with parted and/or cfdisk you might 
try them under Knoppix...

Is there a jumper or BIOS setting for the controller (or on the disk 
itself) to tell it to always use large disk mode?  (I don't know what 
the official name for that mode is -- maybe somebody on the list 
knows?)  That would be worth a try.

I think the mode is called LBA48. I carefully avoided disks larger than 
120 Mbytes because I expected problems with them, then I got a 120 Gbyte 
LBA48 drive. My Athlon system required a BIOS upgrade to accommodate it.

I think there are now drives down to 80 Gbytes that are LBA48.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:33:18AM +1000, Sara Falamaki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:15:36PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > I don't know if this is relevant, but some IDE controllers only
> > recognize the first 128 GB(binary) = 137*10^9 bytes.
> > 
> > Is it possible that your controller has two modes?  Windows uses one
> > mode that recognizes the whole disk, and Linux uses the other
> > (compatibility?) mode that only recognizes the first 137 GB(decimal)...?

> Doubt it, as the problem doesn't seem to be recognising the whole
> disk, 4 parts appear under /dev/discs/disc1/ as expected.

The appearance of device nodes under /dev does not guarantee that these
partitions are accessible or usable under Linux.  The Linux kernel is
actually much more forgiving than parted when it comes to invalid
partition tables; if the partition table says the partition is there,
the kernel will accept this, until you try to access it.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Rick Thomas]

Controllers that don't believe in disks larger than 137 GB(decimal) 
report any disk larger than that as being exactly 137 GB in size.  
This is probably why cfdisk et al are telling you that your 
partitions go beyond the end of the disk -- as far as they know, 
the disk ends before the beginning of the partition: at 137 GB.

It's a good sign that Windows can see the tail of the disk.  That 
means that the controller is capable of seeing it, even if Linux 
isn't forcing the right mode to make it do so.  It's also a hopeful 
sign that Knoppix can mount the partitions on the tail of the disk.

To see if the problem really lies with parted and/or cfdisk you 
might try them under Knoppix...

Is there a jumper or BIOS setting for the controller (or on the 
disk itself) to tell it to always use large disk mode?  (I don't 
know what the official name for that mode is -- maybe somebody on 
the list knows?)  That would be worth a try.

I know it's possible to use disks larger than 137 GB with Linux -- 
I'm doing it!

Rick
On Monday, July 19, 2004, at 08:33 PM, Sara Falamaki wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:15:36PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
I don't know if this is relevant, but some IDE controllers only
recognize the first 128 GB(binary) = 137*10^9 bytes.
Is it possible that your controller has two modes?  Windows uses one
mode that recognizes the whole disk, and Linux uses the other
(compatibility?) mode that only recognizes the first 137 
GB(decimal)...?
Doubt it, as the problem doesn't seem to be recognising the whole
disk, 4 parts appear under /dev/discs/disc1/ as expected.  I was also
able to mount all the partitions in knoppix.  An error arises when
parted (or cfdisk) try to read the partition table, and die when
they think there is a partition after the end of the disk.
With parted -s /dev/discs/disc1/disc print I get the message:
   "Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk"
With cfdisk, doing the same thing, I get:
   "FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 3: Partition begins
   after end-of-disk"
 -S

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Sara Falamaki]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:15:36PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I don't know if this is relevant, but some IDE controllers only
> recognize the first 128 GB(binary) = 137*10^9 bytes.
> 
> Is it possible that your controller has two modes?  Windows uses one
> mode that recognizes the whole disk, and Linux uses the other
> (compatibility?) mode that only recognizes the first 137 GB(decimal)...?

Doubt it, as the problem doesn't seem to be recognising the whole
disk, 4 parts appear under /dev/discs/disc1/ as expected.  I was also
able to mount all the partitions in knoppix.  An error arises when
parted (or cfdisk) try to read the partition table, and die when
they think there is a partition after the end of the disk.

With parted -s /dev/discs/disc1/disc print I get the message:
   "Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk"

With cfdisk, doing the same thing, I get: 

   "FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 3: Partition begins 
   after end-of-disk"

 -S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Rick Thomas]

I don't know if this is relevant, but some IDE controllers only
recognize the first 128 GB(binary) = 137*10^9 bytes.

Is it possible that your controller has two modes?  Windows uses one
mode that recognizes the whole disk, and Linux uses the other
(compatibility?) mode that only recognizes the first 137 GB(decimal)...?

I haven't tried a big disk on an x86 box, but on my Beige G3 PowerMacs,
I have to use a SIIG UltraIDE PCI controller to see the tail-ends of my
larger disks.  The on-board IDE controller that Apple built into those
boxes refuses to see beyond 137 GB(decimal).

For what it's worth, the SIIG controller works fine with Linux -- as
well as with MacOS. 

Enjoy!

Rick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'll paste it below for your convenience:
> > 
> >  Problems with the debian (sarge) installer
> 
> For the record, after the IRC talk we had : this was reproducible on
> 20040718 sid_d-i image
> 
> I have asked Sara to try reproducing with a 2.6 install.

As I forgot to do so : thanks a lot, Sara, for the time you spent on
this problem. This was not wasted, definitely, though it may have
appeared to be.

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'll paste it below for your convenience:
> > 
> >  Problems with the debian (sarge) installer
> 
> For the record, after the IRC talk we had : this was reproducible on
> 20040718 sid_d-i image
> 
> I have asked Sara to try reproducing with a 2.6 install.

Still for the record : 2.6 failed too.

After this, a lot of tests:-)

Kamion  sazzle: same question to you; what does 'parted -s /dev/hda print' on 
tty2 show?
Kamion  er
bubulle tries to remember whether the old partitioner is on the 
netinst/businesscard CD's
Kamion  /dev/discs/disc0/disc I mean, not /dev/hda, sorry
Kamion  bubulle: doubt it's even built any more, *fdisk may be there
sazzle  Kamion: not sure, i'll have to reboot again
sazzle  i'm look with knoppix atm
sazzle  knoppix detects the disks
bubulle sazzle: well, if you say the partitions are there, it's OK. They *are* 
there
bubulle the problem is trying to find why partman doesn't see them..:-)
-->|Khendon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #debian-boot
sazzle  yeah
bubulle So, Kamion suggestion is interesting
<--|Khendon has left #debian-boot
-->|Tolimar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #debian-boot
-->|decko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #debian-boot
bubulle and also trying "fdisk /dev/discs/disc0/disc" on tty2 may be of some 
interest
joshk   yawns
joshk   not enough sleep
bubulle of cfdisk, I don't remember
bubulle joshk: damn...already there
gravity joshk: morning
joshk   that was a Bad Idea
joshk   brb
bubulle he went ot bed at 10:00UTC, I remember
<--|simonrvn has left #debian-boot ("thanks")
sazzle  just a question, why is it to get to the 2.6 kernel in sarge, you type 
linux26, but in woody to use 2.4 you had to do bf26?
sazzle  er, bf24
nictuku bf = boot floopies
nictuku they don't exist anymore
sazzle  ah
sazzle  always wondered what bf stood for
nictuku is the current daily build of d-i safe for i386, or is it broken? (I 
can't afford to download it twice..)
Kamion  sazzle: 2.4 was too new to be the default in woody
Kamion  sazzle: it's rock-stable now
Kamion  nictuku: you could use rsync, then you don't have to download twice ...
nictuku Kamion, he meant why the "bf" string
sazzle  Kamion: parted -s prints nothing
sazzle  sorry
Kamion  sazzle: with the other arguments?
sazzle  forgot the print
Kamion  right
nictuku Kamion, rsync the iso?
sazzle  Kamion: disk0 is my 80Gb drive
sazzle  Kamion: it prints it correctly, but that's not interesting
Kamion  nictuku: sure, from cdimage.debian.org::cdimage-testing/
Kamion  nictuku: look through that to find the iso you want; the structure is 
the same as via http
bubulle sazzle: try "ls -l /dev/discs/disc0"
Kamion  sazzle: well, disk1 or disk2 or whatever ...
sazzle  Kamion: but, if i do it with disk1, it's interesting
sazzle  "Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk"
sazzle  ..that.. explains everything doesn't it?
nictuku thanks kamion
bubulle sazzle: just to confirm, try "cfdisk /dev/discs/disc0/disc"
bubulle this should bring you into the goold old partitioner
sazzle  and with cfdisk, doing the same thing, I get: "FATAL ERROR: Bad 
primary partition 3: Partition begins after end-of-disk"
bubulle OK...
sazzle  just did
bubulle Kamion: what do you think of this? Kernel problem?
sazzle  it seems like a bug in parted, not the kernel
sazzle  as the kernel can read adn write to the disks
Kamion  bubulle: could be a screwed-up partition table that the kernel somehow 
tolerates anyway
bubulle hmmm, /me wonders whether fdisk uses parted
Kamion  bubulle: I doubt it
joshk   no way
joshk   definitely not
bubulle I was pretty sure..:-)
bubulle so, not a parted bug
bubulle what about completely erase the partitions with something else and try 
partitioning with the installer again
sazzle  bubulle: i'm trying to mount the partitions
sazzle  and finish the install
sazzle  lets see if this works
sazzle  hm
sazzle  no
sazzle  i mounted the first and 2nd partitions onto /target
sazzle  is there a way to skip the partitioning step?

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Christian Perrier]

> I'll paste it below for your convenience:
> 
>  Problems with the debian (sarge) installer

For the record, after the IRC talk we had : this was reproducible on
20040718 sid_d-i image

I have asked Sara to try reproducing with a 2.6 install.

Bug#260225: Sarge installer not recognising partition table for disk larger than 137GB

[Sara Falamaki]

package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: 
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sid_d-i/i386/20040718/sarge-i386-netinst.iso
uname -a: Linux swish 2.4.26-1-386 #2 Sat May 1 16:31:24 EST 2004
i686 unkown
Date: Mon Jul 19 22:29:13 EST 2004
Method: downloaded image from above website, and ran the installer
Machine: desktop 
Processor: athlonXP 1.6Ghz
Memory: 256Mb
Root Device: IDE seagate (x2)
Root Size/partition table:  see description

-ommited check boxes-

I have detailed my problem at:


I'll paste it below for your convenience:

 Problems with the debian (sarge) installer

 I have a new 160Gb hard disk. I wanted to put debian on the first
 20GB of it (8GB /home, 12GB /), and have the rest as a big fat32
 partition for backup purposes. I first tried using the sarge
 installer, and found it couldn't see more than 137GB of my 160GB
 drive, but I went ahead and partitioned anyway. I finished the base
 install, putting grub in (hd1,0).

 I have another disk in the computer which has FreeBSD and
 windows-XP on it. The FreeBSD loader was unable to boot from
 (hd1,0). It told me to "PRESS ANY KEY TO REBOOT" when i choose that
 disk.

 I thought I'd start the process again, this time putting grub in
 the MBR of hd1. Before I did so, I booted into windows, and had a
 look at the partition table. It was as the debian installer had
 made it. I took the opportunity to format the 20GB at the end of
 the disk as a fat32 partition. I then rebooted, and inserted the
 sarge installer disk again.

 When I got to the partitioning section of the install process
 again, I noticed that the installer couldn't read my partition
 table at all. It just showed a 137Gb disk that was all Free Space.
 To verify things, I booted into windows again, and the partition
 table was fine. This is where I'm at now. 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]