isk partition tables using fdisk(8):
2023-12-02 09:22:47 root@taz ~
# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 55.9 GiB, 60022480896 bytes, 117231408 sectors
Disk model: INTEL SSDSC2CW06
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 5
Hello all again.
I recently installed Debian-12. Your advises calmed me but will be used
it's tomorrow so as now eyes shutting down.
Good morning!
I began since top of your advices i.e.
https://wiki.debian.org/NewInBuster#Changes and reading: "The su command in
buster is provided by the util-lin
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:46:28PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> My first guess is that you may have done "su" which results in you
> not having /sbin in your path. So you need to execute it as
> /sbin/fdisk, or "su -", or become root by some other means.
At this poin
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:06:58PM +, fuf wrote:
> root@debian:/sbin# fdisk -l
> bash: fdisk: command not found
>
> whereas:
> root@debian:/sbin# ls -al
> .
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 169520 Mar 23 2023 fdisk
>
> why?
My first guess is that y
fuf writes:
> Hello all.
> I'm embarrassed because didn't can use "fdisk"!
> I work as normal user, open the terminal, switch to "root" user but
> get:
> root@debian:/sbin# fdisk -l
> bash: fdisk: command not found
>
> whereas:
> ro
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:06:58PM +, fuf wrote:
> I'm embarrassed because didn't can use "fdisk"!
> I work as normal user, open the terminal, switch to "root" user but get:
> root@debian:/sbin# fdisk -l
> bash: fdisk: command not found
https://wiki
Hello all.
I'm embarrassed because didn't can use "fdisk"!
I work as normal user, open the terminal, switch to "root" user but get:
root@debian:/sbin# fdisk -l
bash: fdisk: command not found
whereas:
root@debian:/sbin# ls -al
.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root169520
lignment:
>
> (parted) align-check opt
> 1 1 aligned
>
>
> So far, so good. Now let's look at the same disk with fdisk:
>
> # fdisk /dev/sdd
>
> : p
>
> Disk /dev/sdd: 12,8 TiB, 14000519643136 bytes, 27344764928 sectors
> Disk model: IB-366StU3+B
> Units:
alignment:
>
> (parted) align-check opt
> 1 1 aligned
>
> So far, so good. Now let's look at the same disk with fdisk:
>
> # fdisk /dev/sdd
> : p
>
> Disk /dev/sdd: 12,8 TiB, 14000519643136 bytes, 27344764928 sectors
> Disk model: IB-366StU3+B
> Units: sec
Le 04/12/2019 à 13:15, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 82DD924B-BF0E-40FF-9037-1FD4E7307D26
Device Start End Sectors Size Type
/dev/sd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:15:27PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 20/01/2017 à 11:11, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit :
> >
> >>On 01/20/2017 11:54 AM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >>>Pre:
> >>>root@debian:/home/gokan#
Le 20/01/2017 à 12:41, Gokan Atmaca a écrit :
Yeah, he's working right now. I've erased all the available parts.
(Disk) I did not write the configuration. (W) Then I created a new
primary partition and gave default values.
Then I ran "resize2fs". Of course, I recreated the deleted swap
partition
Le 20/01/2017 à 11:11, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit :
On 01/20/2017 11:54 AM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Pre:
root@debian:/home/gokan# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda:[b] 40 GiB[/b], 42949672960 bytes, 83886080 sectors
(...)
Post:
root@debian:/home/gokan# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda:[b] 50 GiB[/b], 53687091200
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:41:26PM +0300, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> Yeah, he's working right now. I've erased all the available parts.
> (Disk) I did not write the configuration. (W) Then I created a new
> primary partition and gave default values.
> Then
Yeah, he's working right now. I've erased all the available parts.
(Disk) I did not write the configuration. (W) Then I created a new
primary partition and gave default values.
Then I ran "resize2fs". Of course, I recreated the deleted swap
partition with "dd". That's it ...
Note: I fixed the fsta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:05:26PM +0300, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> I did it. I first erased all parts. Without saying "W". Then I called
> the new section and gave default values.
> I've done it the next time I restart. :)
>
> #resize2fs /dev/sda1
Sorry
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:59:36AM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
>> On 01/20/2017 11:54 AM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > Debian is running as a VM on the KVM. I enlarged the disk with QEMU.
>> > But the disk is as follows.
>> >
follows.
> > So he did not grow up.
> >
> > Pre:
> > root@debian:/home/gokan# fdisk -l
> >
> > Disk /dev/sda:[b] 40 GiB[/b], 42949672960 bytes, 83886080 sectors
> > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> > Sector size (logical/physical):
On 01/20/2017 11:54 AM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> Hello
>
> Debian is running as a VM on the KVM. I enlarged the disk with QEMU.
> But the disk is as follows.
> So he did not grow up.
>
> Pre:
> root@debian:/home/gokan# fdisk -l
>
> Disk /dev/sda:[b] 40 GiB[/b], 42949
Hello
Debian is running as a VM on the KVM. I enlarged the disk with QEMU.
But the disk is as follows.
So he did not grow up.
Pre:
root@debian:/home/gokan# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda:[b] 40 GiB[/b], 42949672960 bytes, 83886080 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical
Sven:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:12:51 +0100, you wrote:
>You said in your first mail that /dev/sda6 was swap. And since Linux
>always numbers the logical partitions beginning from 5 and /dev/sda1 was
>/, /dev/sda2 can only be the extended partition, containing sda5-8.
>Simple deduction (and experienc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 02:54:44AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:53:34PM +0100, jdd wrote:
[...]
> > (but all I have at hand is an openSUSE, the debian version may be different)
>
> LOL, you do realise this is a list for
Le 08/01/2016 14:54, Chris Bannister a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:53:34PM +0100, jdd wrote:
fdisk -l
gives all the necessary info
example:
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sdc1 * 2048 62910463 6290841630G 83 Linux
/dev/sdc2
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 04:53:34PM +0100, jdd wrote:
> fdisk -l
>
> gives all the necessary info
>
> example:
>
> Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
> /dev/sdc1 * 2048 62910463 6290841630G 83 Linux
> /dev/sdc262910464
Le 07/01/2016 16:43, David Christensen a écrit :
'lsblk' can tell you the relationship between kernel names (e.g. sda,
sda1, etc.) and mount points:
$ lsblk
not always. I just tested: lsblk only flag as swap the active swap partition
fdisk -l
gives all the necessary inf
Steve Matzura wrote:
> Sven: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:29:46 +0100, you wrote:
>> /dev/sda5 to /dev/sda8 are logical partitions inside an extended
>> partition. The extended partition is /dev/sda2.
> How did you know that? sda6 isn't even a mounted filesystem--sda1, 5,
> 7 and 8 are the mounted file
Sven:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:29:46 +0100, you wrote:
>/dev/sda5 to /dev/sda8 are logical partitions inside an extended
>partition. The extended partition is /dev/sda2.
How did you know that? sda6 isn't even a mounted filesystem--sda1, 5,
7 and 8 are the mounted filesystems for /, /tmp, /var, and
Le 07/01/2016 08:08, Steve Matzura a écrit :
I actually tried answering my own questions by looking at an other
running system to see how this is done, but the system is a different
df is not the right tool to lokk at partitions, simply use "sudo fdisk -l"
jdd
343005 1% /tmp
> /dev/sda5 2817056 178752 2475488 7% /var
> /dev/sda889493696 57076 84867532 1% /home
> What, then, are /dev/sda2 and /dev/sda6? I tried looking at them with
> FDisk and got the following:
> For /dev/sda2: Failed to read extended
On 9/29/12, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Hi Albrecht!
>
> Am Samstag, 29. September 2012 schrieb Albretch Mueller:
>
> Two ideas:
>
> 1) floppy device activated in BIOS while no floppy device present
>
> 2) floppy emulation for USB mass storage activated in BIOS
~
that was it! Reset, checked and s
On 9/29/12, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> run d-ban on the disk and do a thorough cleaning of the disk then try
~
The only "data erasure" I know of is shredding your hard drives to
pieces, smashing them to dust and melting them. This is by the way
what US gov does with their hard drives and monitors
~
Hi Albrecht!
Am Samstag, 29. September 2012 schrieb Albretch Mueller:
[…]
> [11750.572197] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> [11750.572245] ata1: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
> [11750.676244] ata3.00: ACPI cmd ef/03:0c:00:00:00:a0 (SET FEATURES)
> filtered out
> [11750.676
> Or (from hdparm's man page: Disable the automatic power-saving
> function of certain Seagate drives...):
> hdparm -Z /dev/sda
# hdparm -Z /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
disabling Seagate auto powersaving mode
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(seagatepwrsave) failed: Input/output error
lbrtchx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
~
I think there may be a number of things going on here. Let me first
answer Neal's questions:
~
> Have you tried "fdisk -l /dev/sda"?
~
Well, there are no disk attached whatsoever to my box. I am using a
bear live CD (knoppix 7.0.2) right off the DVD drive
~
> How about:
r_Rate should be zero, or very
> > > low.
> >
> > Not necessarily. At least one disk mfr (Seagate?) puts large values in
> > these fields. Cause me a few moments' consternation the first time I saw
> > it on my own drives
>
> ~
> Indeed! Somethin
ate?) puts large values in these
> fields. Cause me a few moments' consternation the first time I saw it on my
> own drives
~
Indeed! Something "spooky" may be going on. After taking the drive
out in order to back it up, I have run "fdisk -l" with no disk
On Friday, September 28, 2012 08:23:59 AM Dom wrote:
> >1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 115 082 006Pre-fail
> >
> > Always - 96695847
>
> Ok, your disk is dying. The Raw_Read_Error_Rate should be zero, or very
> low.
Not necessarily. At least one disk mfr (Seagate?) p
in a box in which I use the fromhd stanza using a disk which smartclt
reports as being fine the results before and after suspending are the
same
~
this is what the dying disk reports
~
$ date; X=`(time fdisk -l) 2>&1 | grep real`; echo $X
Fri Sep 28 10:52:58 UTC 2012
real 0m0.191s
$
On 28/09/12 13:52, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:23:59PM +0100, Dom wrote:
It *is* possible that smartctl is mis-interpretting the status of
your disk, but given your slow fdisk command I suspect not.
Time to backup, backup, backup, buy a new disk and transfer the data
over
throughout its
running time?
~
See bellow the fdisk -l timings when I run knoppix from the dvd
~
lbrtchx
// __ fdisk -l
$ date; X=`(time fdisk -l) 2>&1 | grep real`; echo $X
Fri Sep 28 10:20:26 UTC 2012
real 0m0.014s
$ date; X=`(time fdisk -l) 2>&1 | grep real`; echo $X
Fri Sep 28 10:
t;awaken" all harddrive/partitions you are using?
fdisk -l seems to do that. However, it's difficult to reasonably put to
sleep a disk which has partitions on it that are mounted, and it's very
questionable if it's reasonable to do so (unless it's an SSD maybe, if
those can be
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:23:59PM +0100, Dom wrote:
> It *is* possible that smartctl is mis-interpretting the status of
> your disk, but given your slow fdisk command I suspect not.
>
> Time to backup, backup, backup, buy a new disk and transfer the data
> over asap.
YES to b
of your
disk, but given your slow fdisk command I suspect not.
Time to backup, backup, backup, buy a new disk and transfer the data
over asap.
--
Dom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas
On 28/09/12 11:30, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 03:52:26AM +0100, Albretch Mueller wrote:
$ date; fdisk -l; date
Thu Sep 27 22:48:21 UTC 2012
Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units
have notice weird things happening when I am and, of
course, my work horse box I don't connect to the Internet at all
~
> So... fdisk -l took 38 seconds - which is a bit much.
~
Yep! Exactly 38 seconds!?!
~
$ date; fdisk -l; date
Fri Sep 28 07:13:45 UTC 2012
Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB,
Hi
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 03:52:26AM +0100, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> $ date; fdisk -l; date
> Thu Sep 27 22:48:21 UTC 2012
>
> Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 =
Could it be a missing swap partition is slowing down drive access? I
don't know if you were connected to the internet when you did this run,
but if so, you might disconnect from the internet and run fdisk -l again
and compare speeds. It could be fdisk is checking for remote disks as
wel
Because your disk is sleeping?
--
Debian testing amd64
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3ve4pyk@yun.yagibdah.de
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:52:26 PM Albretch Mueller wrote:
> $ date; fdisk -l; date
> Thu Sep 27 22:48:21 UTC 2012
> ...
> Thu Sep 27 22:48:59 UTC 2012
Failing boot sector? Some other sector it has to read is failing? Check the
logs. Try (from smartmontools):
smartctl
$ date; fdisk -l; date
Thu Sep 27 22:48:21 UTC 2012
Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:48:42AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:15 AM, wrote:
> >
> > I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> > ls -alR
> > I get output. Some things work.
> >
> > If I issue:
> > fdisk
> > or
> > fdisk -
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:37:45 -0700, ray wrote:
> I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> ls -alR
> I get output. Some things work.
>
> If I issue:
> fdisk
> or
> fdisk -l
> I get 'command not found'.
>
> What might I be doing wrong?
That you need
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 14:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:56 +0200, Sébastien Kalt wrote:
> > That's a common issue when starting with Debian (not sure with other
> > distributions) : /sbin and /usr/sbin directories are not in the user
> > path.
>
> At the moment there isn'
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:56 +0200, Sébastien Kalt wrote:
> That's a common issue when starting with Debian (not sure with other
> distributions) : /sbin and /usr/sbin directories are not in the user
> path.
At the moment there isn't a FHS for any distro :p.
OT for the OT: IIRC Red Hat/ Fedora/ Le
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 04:15 -0700, r...@aarden.us wrote:
> I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> ls -alR
> I get output. Some things work.
>
> If I issue:
> fdisk
> or
> fdisk -l
> I get 'command not found'.
>
> What might I be doing wrong?
>
&
Hi,
2012/8/20 :
> I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> ls -alR
> I get output. Some things work.
>
> If I issue:
> fdisk
> or
> fdisk -l
> I get 'command not found'.
> What might I be doing wrong?
That's a common issue when starting with Debian (n
I just installed Debian. If I issue:
ls -alR
I get output. Some things work.
If I issue:
fdisk
or
fdisk -l
I get 'command not found'.
What might I be doing wrong?
ray
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:15 AM, wrote:
>
> I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> ls -alR
> I get output. Some things work.
>
> If I issue:
> fdisk
> or
> fdisk -l
> I get 'command not found'.
Because it's "/sbin/fdisk" and "/sbin
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:15 AM, wrote:
> I just installed Debian. If I issue:
> ls -alR
> I get output. Some things work.
>
> If I issue:
> fdisk
> or
> fdisk -l
> I get 'command not found'.
> What might I be doing wrong?
>
> ray
&g
I just installed Debian. If I issue:ls -alRI get output. Some things work.If I issue:fdiskor fdisk -lI get 'command not found'.
What might I be doing wrong?
ray
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Stefan:
I'm afraid you can't use dd for this because as far as I know dd(1)
reads and writes one block at a time and in case new position for file
system overlaps with the present one, using dd you will start
overwriting the end of the file system with the readings from the
start of the file syste
> thanks for replies! Is it possible to "slide" partition using the
> tools included with e2fsprogs package as well?
The e2fsprogs tools only deal with the needs specific to
ext[234] partitions. Sliding a partition can be done for any partition
you like with `dd'.
Stefan
--
To UNSUBS
Jochen, Darac:
thanks for replies! Is it possible to "slide" partition using the
tools included with e2fsprogs package as well? Or is the GNU Parted
only option here if I want to make changes over CLI?
regards,
martin
Kuupäeval 26. märts 2012 17:28 kirjutas Darac Marjal :
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:50:27PM +, Martin T wrote:
> I have a 500GB((131072000*4096)/1024^3) ext3 filesystem:
>
[cut]
>
> Is it possible to make partition smaller starting from the beginning?
> If yes, do I need to somehow start file system from the end of the
> partition?
Not directly. T
Martin T:
>
> Is it possible to make partition smaller starting from the beginning?
No.
> If yes, do I need to somehow start file system from the end of the
> partition?
AFAIK that's not possible. The solution for your problem (which involves
initial reformatting) is LVM.
J.
--
There is no ju
partition(sda9):
root@debian:~#fdisk -cul /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 b
e, or so it seems.
Now when I run fdisk, the partition still shows up as NTFS.
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 byte
t; reformatted it as EXT4. That went fine, or so it seems.
What toolset did you use to create the partition and formatting the unit?
> Now when I run fdisk, the partition still shows up as NTFS. Command (m
> for help): p
>
> Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 h
I'm not sure if everything is OK, or if I have to redo what I did.
For backup I purchased a USB 3, 1.5 TB external drive. (Using it USB 2 mode)
The drive came formatted NTFS. Not wanting to hassle with that, I reformatted
it as EXT4. That went fine, or so it seems.
Now when I run fdisk
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:29:38 -0500, Wayne Topa wrote:
> This problem was found on only 1 of 3 installs of Squeeze.
>
> I am now reinstalling the faulty system.
Do you still remember what partition tool that you used (that get you
into this)?
I found whenever I use tools from windows, I get suc
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:21:29 -0500, Wayne Topa wrote:
>After the upgrade to Squeeze I found that cfdisk no longer displays
> the disk Labels and fdisk now shows that all my partitions have
> problems.
(...)
Try with "fdisk -lc", I think that error is just "cosme
Hi Gang
< After the upgrade to Squeeze I found that cfdisk no longer displays
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d517d82.1010...@gmail.com
Hi Gang
After the upgrade to Squeeze I found that cfdisk no longer displays
the disk Labels and fdisk now shows that all my partitions have problems.
This was not the case before the upgrade and does not occur on
testing on (sda5)
Anyone else seeing this??
Disk /dev/sda: 160 GB
On the 02/02/2011 05:21, Siju George wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Regarding "sfdisk -d", if you ran this command with a filesystem already
>> on the source drive you'll run into problems due to the filesystem
>> boundaries being misplaced.
>>
>
also sprach Siju George [2011.02.02.0521 +0100]:
> to create identical partitions on sdb and then added it to the RAID device by
>
> #mdadm -a /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1
> #mdadm -a /dev/md1 /dev/sdb2
> #mdadm -a /dev/md2 /dev/sdb3
> #mdadm -a /dev/md3 /dev/sdb4
Why not just create one device and partit
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>
> Regarding "sfdisk -d", if you ran this command with a filesystem already
> on the source drive you'll run into problems due to the filesystem
> boundaries being misplaced.
>
Thanks for the reply but I did not get it full :-(
The
On the 01/02/2011 14:13, Siju George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I installed Debian Squeeze on a server with 2 Disks on RAID 1
> The second disk failed and I was trying to replace it with a new one.
> And I found this in the partition table
>
>
> roo
Hi,
I installed Debian Squeeze on a server with 2 Disks on RAID 1
The second disk failed and I was trying to replace it with a new one.
And I found this in the partition table
root@vmsrv:~# fdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads
Camaleón writes:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:38:23 +, Csanyi Pal wrote:
>
>> Camaleón writes:
>>
>>> Then try with another tools like fdisk or sfdisk, to discard a problem
>>> with cfdisk. You can even try to run "cfdisk" from any LiveCD of your
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:38:23 +, Csanyi Pal wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> Then try with another tools like fdisk or sfdisk, to discard a problem
>> with cfdisk. You can even try to run "cfdisk" from any LiveCD of your
>> choice (systemrescuecd is a good one
Camaleón writes:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:46:14 +, Csanyi Pal wrote:
>>> What is your goal for running cfdisk, what do you want to do?
>>
>> Nothing special, just to see partitions on sdb with cfdisk.
>
> Then try with another tools like fdisk or sfdisk, to di
is toast from playing with fdisk.
If you want to delete and recreate the partitions (then filesystems
later) using fdisk it will work.
I think what you are doing isn't working because possibly some inodes
exist beyond the new partition boundary and thengs are getting
confused.
Adrian
--
24x7x36
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Adrian Levi wrote:
> 2009/1/31 Rodrigo Hashimoto :
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I have some troubles while resizing my vfat partition with fdisk. First
> it
> > was strange because in fdisk the partitions were fine as following:
>
>
On 01/30/2009 01:39 PM, Rodrigo Hashimoto wrote:
Hi there,
I have some troubles while resizing my vfat partition with fdisk. First
it was strange because in fdisk the partitions were fine as following:
gparted is the correct tool for resizing partitions.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA
2009/1/31 Rodrigo Hashimoto :
> Hi there,
>
> I have some troubles while resizing my vfat partition with fdisk. First it
> was strange because in fdisk the partitions were fine as following:
Is there data on the disc that you are intending on keeping or are you
just wanting to e
Hi there,
I have some troubles while resizing my vfat partition with fdisk. First it
was strange because in fdisk the partitions were fine as following:
-
*debian-lap:~# fdisk -l /dev/sdb
Disk /dev/sdb: 4022 MB, 4022337536 bytes
29 heads, 28 sectors/track, 9675 cylinders
Units
Anybody know what this error message means?
greybox:~# mac-fdisk -l /dev/hda
mac-fdisk: Symbol `sys_errlist' has different size in shared
object, onsider re-linking
The machine in question is a PowerMac G4 running Lenny.
Thoughts?
Rick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Hi,
When I use fdisk I get back (among others):
...
Disk identifier: 0x0843f502
...
Can I get the disk model/type from that? I don't find that identifier in
anything that hdparm outputs.
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On the other hand, having /boot separate could be more robust in the
event of an unclean shutdown. The system won't boot at all if the
kernel file gets corrupted, so having /boot separate, and perhaps
mounted ro helps protect it.
I suppose,
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
> partition, whereas you can add as many swap files as your heart
> desires, whenever you need them.
After reading this thread
David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There may be good reason for it still in terms of security. /boot
>> doesn't need to be mounted on a running system. I'm not sure if that
>> adds a lot of security though.
> I'm thinking no. To alter any of the kernel files you'd need root
> privileg
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 11:59:02AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:23 PM, s. keeling wrote:
> >Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
> >>>system? I always th
David Brodbeck writes:
> I'm thinking no. To alter any of the kernel files you'd need root
> privileges, and if you have that, you can do 'mount /boot'.
True for an intelligent cracker, but a trojan trying to patch the kernel
isn't going to know to mount anything.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSC
On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:23 PM, s. keeling wrote:
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
system? I always thought /boot was just a kludge to get around old
BIOSes that couldn't load anythin
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
> >
> > Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
> > system? I always thought /boot was just a kludge to get around old
> > BIOSes that couldn't load anything that wasn't on the first part o
* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-24 16:40:08 -0500]:
> Or go out on Ebay and buy some replacement RAM chips. If the chips
> on your Hell aren't soldered onto the mobo.
>
Yep, good point.
--
Regards,
Klein.
Hey, what do you expect from a culture that *drives* on *parkways* and
*par
David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd always heard that swap files are slower than swap partitions. Is
>that a myth?
Not a myth, just old information. It used to be the case that swap files
were slower than swap partitions, but this stopped being true sometime
around kernel 2.4
>Also
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:55:09PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/24/07 16:24, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
> >
> > Don't believe everything you read.
>
> That's why I qualified my statement.
>
> I think it was Doug Tutty who repo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 16:24, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
>
> Don't believe everything you read.
That's why I qualified my statement.
I think it was Doug Tutty who reported here that he had LVM prob
On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:18 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
architectures, so that you can't just upgrade your mobo to AMD64 and
retain your /home.
Well, now you've got me curious. If s
1 - 100 of 347 matches
Mail list logo
