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 I
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
* 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
*parks*
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 of the
I
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 anything
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
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 thought /boot was
It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
lowest sector numbers. Do I understand this right?
I am about to reformat a 20-gig hard disk on a
5
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:10:41AM -0500, Martin McCormick wrote:
It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
lowest sector numbers. Do I understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 08:10, Martin McCormick wrote:
It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
lowest sector
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson 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.
I'd always heard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson 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,
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.
I'd always heard that swap files are slower than swap partitions.
Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
disk, there no room left over if you want to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 12:51, Stefan Monnier 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,
On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
I think that's true. I don't usually make the root filesystem an LVM
volume, anyway. In most distributions it's quite small and
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 so, this is potentially a
serious issue, because
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:14:42 -0700
David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
I think that's true. I don't usually make the root
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:51:14 -0400
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All my drives have 2 partitions: a /boot (with ext2 or ext3) of about 100MB
and the rest is an partition dedicated to LVM. The reason for the separate
/boot is that GRUB does not know how to read files from LVM
Celejar wrote:
Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
I believe it is actually outdated information; GRUB apparently supports
LVM these days:
http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID
Check the version
* Martin McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-24 08:10:41 -0500]:
It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
lowest sector numbers. Do I understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 16:02, Klein Moebius wrote:
[snip]
In older machines where hard drive physical speed can be a noticable
factor in machine performance, it makes sense to to place your
partitions that see the most activity in terms of read/write accesses
I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
Don't believe everything you read.
Stefan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
-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
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 reported here
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, is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bonjour à tous,
Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste. Je voulais savoir si il
y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque. Actuellement
j'ai plutôt pris l'habitude de faire des disques de données formaté en
XFS sans aucune
Etienne Bagnoud a écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
Bonjour
Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste.
Bienvenue !
Je voulais savoir si il
y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque. Actuellement
j'ai plutôt pris l'habitude de faire des disques de données formaté en
XFS sans aucune
/dev/sdb sans jamais avoir fait de fdisk ou autre.
Le fait d'avoir plusieurs partitions sert à isoler des parties de ton
système qui ont des comportements/fonctionnalités différents et donc
leur permettre en quelque sorte de réagir à ces contraintes
relativement indépendamment les unes des autres
/dev/sdb par exemple, suivi d'un
mount /dev/sdb sans jamais avoir fait de fdisk ou autre.
Le fait d'avoir plusieurs partitions sert à isoler des parties de ton
système qui ont des comportements/fonctionnalités différents et donc
leur permettre en quelque sorte de réagir à ces contraintes
Mauvais choix en partie... /home si tu ne le met pas séparé il te sera
impossible de récupérer tes données en cas de crash, re-formatage,
upgrade avec la 2008 par exemple
/swap est séparé c'est impératif
André ON4HU
Le mardi 3 juillet 2007, Etienne Bagnoud a écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
Ceci est
prends /srv, ce serait /dev/sdb. Il n'y a aucun
partitionnement avec 'fdisk'.
Je mets le système de fichier en faisant directement 'mkfs.xfs /dev/sdb'.
Maintenant si j'arrive à 18Go d'utilisation sur le /srv, je vais
simplement redimensionner le disque logique (sur le SAN) puis je peux
ensuite
Basile STARYNKEVITCH a écrit :
pascal wrote:
Etienne Bagnoud a écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
Bonjour
Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste.
Bienvenue !
Je voulais savoir si il
y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque.
Le Tuesday 03 July 2007 09:02:32 Etienne Bagnoud, vous avez écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste. Je voulais savoir si il
y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque. Actuellement
j'ai plutôt pris l'habitude de faire des disques de données formaté
Etienne Bagnoud wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bonjour à tous,
Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste. Je voulais savoir si il
y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque. Actuellement
j'ai plutôt pris l'habitude de faire des disques de données formaté
mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Etienne Bagnoud wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
| Bonjour à tous,
|
| Ceci est mon premier message sur cette liste. Je voulais savoir si il
| y a une importance à créer des partitions sur un disque. Actuellement
| j'ai plutôt pris
El 23/06/07, ramirex [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
cfdisk...por cierto...que tiene de malo/que le falta a fdisk?
Gracias por sus aportes
2007/6/23, satelite guayana [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hola, puedes usar varias maneras y comandos
$ df -h
$ cat /proc/partitions
Graficamente puedes usar el gparted, disks-admin, entre otros
Bueno si hablamos de aplicaciones graficas, también existe qtparted
(otro clon de partition magic, a veces
, Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
El sáb, 23-06-2007 a las 17:30 +0200, ramirex escribió:
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
Gracias por sus aportes
df funciona como usuario pero solo te da
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
Gracias por sus aportes
--
--- ramirex -
[powered by Linux
El sáb, 23-06-2007 a las 17:30 +0200, ramirex escribió:
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
Gracias por sus aportes
cat /proc/partitions (funciona como usuario)
lshw (solo saca las particioens como root
2007/6/23, Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
El sáb, 23-06-2007 a las 17:30 +0200, ramirex escribió:
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
Gracias por sus aportes
df funciona como usuario pero
, ramirex escribió:
Saludos..
Quisiera saber que alternativa existe para que me saque la lista de
particiones del disco duro igual a fdisk -l
Gracias por sus aportes
df funciona como usuario pero solo te da informaciones sobre las
particiones montadas.
--
Christophe T
--
Félix E
Salve!
Mais fácil ainda, crie as partições que desejare faça o backup dela assim:
# sfdisk -d /dev/hda hda.sf
Depois execute esse comando para criar as partições:
# sfdisk --force /dev/hda hda.sf
Depois vc reinstala o grub e voilá!
--
Ataliba Neto.
Muitos me seguem, só Deus me acompanha.
toda a mbr e a tabla de partições
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda count=512
fdisk /dev/hda EOF
n
p
1
1
+512M
n
p
2
w
q
EOF
exit 0
isso cria duas partições, uma swap de 512M e uma outra partição normal, do
tamanho restante do hd.
Obviamente eu adicionei uma confirmação antes, para não acontecerem
Boa tarde,
Estou fazendo um script que tem que criar partições sozinho no hd, sem a
interação do usuário. Alguém tem alguma dica de como fazer isso?
Estou estudando o fdisk...
Abraços
--
Rúben Lício Reis
Linux user #433535
Linux because we are freedon.
On 1/19/07, Rúben Lício [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Estou fazendo um script que tem que criar partições sozinho no hd, sem a
interação do usuário. Alguém tem alguma dica de como fazer isso?
Estou estudando o fdisk...
Essa é fácil :)
--
#!/bin/sh
fdisk /dev/sda EOF
insira
Tengo un problema relativo...
Hago un fdisk -l y me sale:
Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 1600 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19452 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 18236 146480638+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 18237 19452
El mar, 14-11-2006 a las 12:55 +0100, Jaume escribió:
Tengo un problema relativo...
Hago un fdisk -l y me sale:
Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 1600 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19452 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Hola a tots.
No se si algú li ha passat, però he clonat un disc de 80Gb amb partimage
i després he recuperat la partició a un disc de 160. l'sda1 era de 70Gb
en el primer i ara és de 155 Gb. L'fdisk m'ho treu bé, però el df -h
em mostra 70Gb.
En canvi si ho faig per inodes df -i em dona un
Le Samedi 24 Juin 2006 16:39, Ricardo Frydman Eureka! a écrit :
Quizás la lista entera de las particiones de todos sus discos.
En mi máquina fdisk -l me lo hace.
Apuesto algunos doblones de chocolate que no usas AMD64, ni SATA, y
ademas lo haces como root.
Has acertado. ¿Donde debo mandar
debian sarge de 32 bits
en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
te responde a lo que le preguntas.
ejem ...
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he encontrado ningun dato
que me permita entender porque sucede esto y como
bits
en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
te responde a lo que le preguntas.
ejem ...
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he encontrado ningun dato
que me permita entender porque sucede esto y
El lun, 26-06-2006 a las 18:44 +0200, Francisco Alférez escribió:
-Mensaje original-
De: Inigo Tejedor Arrondo
[...]
Disco /dev/hdb: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
255 cabezas, 63 sectores/pista, 14593 cilindros
Unidades = cilindros de 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disposit.
-Mensaje original-
De: Inigo Tejedor Arrondo
El lun, 26-06-2006 a las 18:44 +0200, Francisco Alférez escribió:
-Mensaje original-
De: Inigo Tejedor Arrondo
[...]
Disco /dev/hdb: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
255 cabezas, 63 sectores/pista, 14593 cilindros
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Claude Micouin wrote:
Le Jeudi 22 Juin 2006 20:13, Ricardo Frydman Eureka! a écrit :
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi
amd64. Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como
:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he encontrado ningun dato que me
permita entender porque sucede esto y como solucionarlo. Alguno sabe que
podria hacer?
Que supones que debieras obtener?
Quizás la lista entera de las particiones de todos
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Buenos dias, buenas tardes, buenas noches:
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits
en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
te responde a lo
El día 22/06/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Buenos dias, buenas tardes, buenas noches:Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:# fdisk -lobtengo como resultado... NADA!Lo vas a tener que
, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
te responde a lo que le preguntas.
ejem ...
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he encontrado ningun dato
que me permita entender porque sucede esto y como solucionarlo.
Alguno sabe que podria hacer?
Si, man fdisk :)
Dile el
.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
Lo vas a tener que ejecutar como root, o como usuario administrador
Creo que ya nos ha indicado la almohadilla...
$ su
# /sbin/fdisk -l
o
$ sudo
Le Jeudi 22 Juin 2006 20:13, Ricardo Frydman Eureka! a écrit :
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi
amd64. Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he
Buenos dias, buenas tardes, buenas noches:
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
Estuve googleando un rato y, aun, no he encontrado ningun dato que me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buenos dias, buenas tardes, buenas noches:
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buenos dias, buenas tardes, buenas noches:
Tengo un problema con mi recien instalado debian sarge de 32 bits en mi amd64.
Tal como indica el asunto del correo, cuando ejecuto:
# fdisk -l
obtengo como resultado... NADA!
¿Lo ejecutaste como root?
--
Rodrigo
Jan Kohnert schrieb:
Rüdiger Noack schrieb:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es eine Regel, die statt /dev/sdx1 /dev/Xtick
erzeugt.
Ich lasse mir statt des Devices einen Symlink erzeugen, bei meinem Stick gibt
es dann z.B.
/dev/sdX
/dev
Andreas Pakulat schrieb:
On 21.05.06 22:49:02, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Moin,
in Zusammenhang mit meinem USB-Stick-Problemchen bin ich noch einmal angeeckt:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es eine Regel, die statt /dev/sdx1 /dev/Xtick erzeugt
On 23.05.06 21:51:35, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Andreas Pakulat schrieb:
On 21.05.06 22:49:02, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Moin,
in Zusammenhang mit meinem USB-Stick-Problemchen bin ich noch einmal
angeeckt:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:05:09PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 21:24, Digby Tarvin wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 07:08:43PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
Actually, fixing the order in fdisk will exchange what is now /dev/hdc1
(linux) and /dev/hdc2 (extended). Everything
the order in fdisk will exchange what is now /dev/hdc1
(linux) and /dev/hdc2 (extended). Everything else remains in place.
Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Your current /dev/hdc1 starts
at cylinder 65520, so it actually the 7th partition on the disk.
No conclusion. Ran fdisk, went to advanced
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 09:45:02PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
This is the print from fdisk from my linux disk:
Disk /dev/hdc: 41.1 GB, 41110142976 bytes
16 heads, 63 sectors/track, 79656 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 = 516096 bytes
Device Boot Start End
On Monday 22 May 2006 13:26, Digby Tarvin wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 09:45:02PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
This is the print from fdisk from my linux disk:
Disk /dev/hdc: 41.1 GB, 41110142976 bytes
16 heads, 63 sectors/track, 79656 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 = 516096
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 03:54:36PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
Two common sources of problem I have found are partition tables that
are not in the same order in the table as the partitions are on disk,
and the location and size of the extended partition in the primary
partition table (some
, or you have to physically move the data
on the disk. For the latter, you are basically back to doing a beckup,
repartition, reformat and then restore
Actually, fixing the order in fdisk will exchange what is now /dev/hdc1
(linux) and /dev/hdc2 (extended). Everything else remains in place. Could I
I am a bit crazy about partitions and keep changing them, about twice a
year, my wife won't generally let me near her PC.
I saw somewhere that data at end/center of disk has slower I/O so I put
hdx4 there with a bootable Linux-fix-RIP partition containing all backup
data, I keep this to about
to change the partition table to
match what you actually have, or you have to physically move the data
on the disk. For the latter, you are basically back to doing a beckup,
repartition, reformat and then restore
Actually, fixing the order in fdisk will exchange what is now /dev/hdc1
(linux
Moin,
in Zusammenhang mit meinem USB-Stick-Problemchen bin ich noch einmal
angeeckt:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es eine Regel, die statt /dev/sdx1 /dev/Xtick
erzeugt. Wie lautet nun das Äquivalent zu fdisk /dev/sdx?
Rüdiger
Rüdiger Noack schrieb:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es eine Regel, die statt /dev/sdx1 /dev/Xtick
erzeugt.
Ich lasse mir statt des Devices einen Symlink erzeugen, bei meinem Stick gibt
es dann z.B.
/dev/sdX
/dev/sdX1
/dev/usbstick - /dev
On 21.05.06 22:49:02, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Moin,
in Zusammenhang mit meinem USB-Stick-Problemchen bin ich noch einmal angeeckt:
Wie benutzt man fdisk für Geräte, für die es udev-Regeln gibt?
In meinem Fall gibt es eine Regel, die statt /dev/sdx1 /dev/Xtick erzeugt.
Wie
lautet nun das
This is the print from fdisk from my linux disk:
Disk /dev/hdc: 41.1 GB, 41110142976 bytes
16 heads, 63 sectors/track, 79656 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 = 516096 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdc1 * 65520 77600 6088635
Olá pessoal.
gostaria de saber pq o comando fdisk -l não retorna, versão do debian
3.1r0a, nos outros isso funciona perfeitamente é que gostaria de
averiguar qual fylesystem é utilizado nesse servidor e tmb quantas
partições ele tem, alguem sabe o pq ele não me retorna nada
Tens de especificar o disco:
# fdisk -l /dev/sda
--
Maxwillian Miorim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slackware 10.2 / current e OpenBSD 3.8
There's no place like ${HOME}
Maxwillian Miorim escreveu:
Tens de especificar o disco:
# fdisk -l /dev/sda
--
Maxwillian Miorim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slackware 10.2 / current e OpenBSD 3.8
There's no place like ${HOME}
se eu especificar o disco ele simplesmente me retorna o seguinte.
O númeor de cilindros para
).
Hier mal die Partitionstabelle (von fdisk):
/dev/hda1 NTFS
/dev/hda2 Linux
/dev/hda3 Erweiterte
/dev/hda5 Linux Swap / Solaris
/dev/hda6 Verst. W95 FAT32
/dev/hda6 manuell formatiert mit mkfs.msdos.
Unter Linux kann ich darauf zugreifen, unter XP sehe ich nur die
Gruesse!
* Ricardo Leese [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am [15.01.06 16:20]:
Hier mal die Partitionstabelle (von fdisk):
/dev/hda1 NTFS
/dev/hda2 Linux
/dev/hda3 Erweiterte
/dev/hda5 Linux Swap / Solaris
/dev/hda6 Verst. W95 FAT32
Unter Linux kann ich darauf zugreifen
mal die Partitionstabelle (von fdisk):
/dev/hda1 NTFS
/dev/hda2 Linux
/dev/hda3 Erweiterte
/dev/hda5 Linux Swap / Solaris
/dev/hda6 Verst. W95 FAT32
Unter Linux kann ich darauf zugreifen, unter XP sehe ich nur die
XP-Partition.
Deine hda6 hat den falschen
conclusivo.
Em um HD de 100GB tenho OpenBSD, Debian (Testing) e Windows, tudo
funcionando perfeitamente.
No entanto, quando estou no Linux e executo um fdisk -l /dev/hda,
observo a seguinte mensagem:
Partition N does not end on cylinder boundary, onde N corresponde ao
número da partição
Windows, tudo
funcionando perfeitamente.
No entanto, quando estou no Linux e executo um fdisk -l /dev/hda,
observo a seguinte mensagem:
Partition N does not end on cylinder boundary, onde N corresponde ao
número da partição.
Infelizmente estou em outra máquina e não tenho como enviar a saída
tenho OpenBSD, Debian (Testing) e Windows, tudo
funcionando perfeitamente.
No entanto, quando estou no Linux e executo um fdisk -l /dev/hda,
observo a seguinte mensagem:
Partition N does not end on cylinder boundary, onde N corresponde ao
número da partição.
Infelizmente estou em outra máquina e não
Le mardi 03 janvier 2006 à 22:35 +0100, fabrice a écrit :
bonsoir,
Je possède un portable Dell XPS Gen 2 sur lequel j'ai installé une
Debian 2.4.27-2-686 a partir d'une image mini iso.
Le problème est que je ne vois rien lorsque je fais la commande
fdisk -l
Alors que je devrais voir mes
bonsoir,
Je possède un portable Dell XPS Gen 2 sur lequel j'ai installé une
Debian 2.4.27-2-686 a partir d'une image mini iso.
Le problème est que je ne vois rien lorsque je fais la commande
fdisk -l
Alors que je devrais voir mes partitions (cette commande fonctionne avec
la même distrib sur
Florian (flobee) wrote:
Hallo
Danke Allen :-)
--
Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ):
http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/
Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Am 2005-09-05 01:46:03, schrieb Florian (flobee):
Hallo
hda:
- hda1 primary
- hda5 logical
- hda2 primary
hdb:
- hdb1 primary
- hdb5 logical
- hdb3 primary
hdb3 anstelle von hdb2 wie bei hda
ist das richtig?
Ja, denn
hda2 ist dadurch entstanden das ich aus zwei primären
Hallo
Ich habe nur eine kl. verständnissfrage die ich mir nicht ganz erklären kann:
Ich will gerade eine zweite platte (gleiche grösse) partitionieren.
hda:
- hda1 primary
- hda5 logical
- hda2 primary
stelle ich das mittels cfdisk auf der zweiten platte ein erhalte ich folgende devices:
hdb:
-
Florian (flobee) schrieb:
Hallo
Moin, :-P
Ich habe nur eine kl. verständnissfrage die ich mir nicht ganz erklären
kann:
Mal einfach ausgedrückt:
Ich will gerade eine zweite platte (gleiche grösse) partitionieren.
hda:
- hda1 primary
- hda5 logical
- hda2 primary
Du hast 3 Partitionen:
now), though, instead mount reports:
mount: special device /dev/sda1 does not exist
The interesting thing is, if as root I fdisk /dev/sda and the hit p,
and q, mounting works again.
Is this a bug in mount? In the SCSI subsystem? I'm ignorant here, it's
quite possible it's some
On Mon, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:21:48PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
It sounds more like either a corrupted filesystem on the memory card, or some
non-conformant FAT-implementation in the mobile device. I have great faith in
Linux's FAT-implementation.
How could a corrupted filesystem cause
/dev/sda1 does not exist
The interesting thing is, if as root I fdisk /dev/sda and the hit p,
and q, mounting works again.
Is this a bug in mount? In the SCSI subsystem? I'm ignorant here, it's
quite possible it's some subtle mistake I'm making.
Any suggestions appreciated.
--
Carl Fink
201 - 300 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
