Re: Subject: "Next" button is missing for manual partitioning.

Entr the above line, changes will take part. Hope this helps. Best regards Hans > Alexander Straub > > Pater-Faller-Str. 6 > > 79837 Germany > > Subject: "Next" button missing on manual partitioningI installed Debian > 12 on my computer. > > I select

Re: Subject: "Next" button is missing for manual partitioning.

lps. Best regards Hans > Alexander Straub > > Pater-Faller-Str. 6 > > 79837 Germany > > Subject: "Next" button missing on manual partitioningI installed Debian > 12 on my computer. > > I selected the "Manual Partitioning" option and selected a pa

Subject: "Next" button is missing for manual partitioning.

Alexander Straub Pater-Faller-Str. 6 79837 Germany Subject: "Next" button missing on manual partitioningI installed Debian 12 on my computer. I selected the "Manual Partitioning" option and selected a partition. However, the "Next" button is not availab

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 23:09:15 -0600 David Wright wrote: > On Thu 16 Feb 2023 at 08:59:58 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote: > > pa...@quillandmouse.com (12023-02-15): > > > Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end > > > up having to do every time Debian comes out with a new

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 16/02/2023 22:25, Joe wrote: Stretch installed perfectly dual-boot with Win 10 on an EFI Acer netbook, but upgrading to Buster broke booting to grub. It actually broke EFI booting completely, but I've been able to restore booting at least to Windows. And yes, I've tried everything the Net can

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Thu 16 Feb 2023 at 08:59:58 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote: > pa...@quillandmouse.com (12023-02-15): > > Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end up > > having to do every time Debian comes out with a new version > > Debian is not Ubuntu, major upgrade do not break the

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

Cindy Sue Causey wrote: ... have you tried refind? i've been using it for several years now and while i do still have grub installed and it gets updated i primarily use refind instead. songbird

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:33:32 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > It's likely that LILO will go with Bookworm - I think it's more or > less unmaintained if I recall correctly, so someone needs to help you > getting this one to work. Is this your only machine? It doesn't seem to be in Bookworm

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:11:02PM -0500, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > > Upgrades are definitely a lot more trouble now, and yes, I do realise > > that each release is bigger and more complicated than the last. > > > Ditto. I can still remember saying (on Debian-User) that if someone > wanted to

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 2/16/23, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:59:58 +0100 > Nicolas George wrote: > >> pa...@quillandmouse.com (12023-02-15): >> > Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end up >> > having to do every time Debian comes out with a new version >> >> Debian is not Ubuntu,

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:59:58 +0100 Nicolas George wrote: > pa...@quillandmouse.com (12023-02-15): > > Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end up > > having to do every time Debian comes out with a new version > > Debian is not Ubuntu, major upgrade do not break the

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

> Therefore, except for the narrow case of writing into a block which has > never before been written, every write on a SSD *is* an erase+write > operation. No, that would lead to terribly poor performance (both in terms of speed and in terms of wear). >> So: you read the whole block, blank it,

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

The Wanderer (12023-02-16): > That is exactly what I've always been told *does* happen, ever since > first reading about how SSDs et cetera work, more than a decade ago. > This is the first time I've seen a suggestion to the contrary. This is surprising to me, since I have had the exact opposite

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 2023-02-16 at 08:10, Nicolas George wrote: > The Wanderer (12023-02-16): > >> filesystems et cetera aligned to physical blocks, because physical block >> size defines the minimum size that can be erased (and, therefore, >> overwritten) in any given operation, > > This is true. Note: erased,

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

The Wanderer (12023-02-16): > filesystems et cetera aligned to physical blocks, because physical block > size defines the minimum size that can be erased (and, therefore, > overwritten) in any given operation, This is true. Note: erased, not written. > and

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:22:56AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: What physical boundaries do SSDs have to report? All I know about that are exposed are sector size and sector count. I have yet to find one where logical/physical were not 512B/512B. Don't worry about it; modern partition tools

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

Am 16.02.2023 um 13:30 schrieb DdB: > Unfortunately, the > data set related to this, i could gather personally is not large > enough to be telling. https://www.servethehome.com/ssd-alignment-quickly-benchmark-ssd/

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Am 16.02.2023 um 13:00 schrieb The Wanderer: > This being the very first time I can remember having encountered > even the suggestion that there's no need to be concerned about > erase-block sizes when dealing with SSDs et cetera, I hope it's >

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 2023-02-16 at 05:45, Nicolas George wrote: > DdB (12023-02-16): > >> Am 16.02.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Felix Miata: >> > None of the 25 or so SSDs/NVMEs I have have 4k sectors. e.g. >> >> Wow, they must be rather old, then. ;-) >> >> I know, i am not the only one ... >>

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

DdB (12023-02-16): > Am 16.02.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Felix Miata: > > None of the 25 or so SSDs/NVMEs I have have 4k sectors. e.g. > > Wow, they must be rather old, then. ;-) > > I know, i am not the only one ... > https://serverfault.com/questions/1113068/how-to-find-page-size-of-my-ssd Of

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

Am 16.02.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Felix Miata: > None of the 25 or so SSDs/NVMEs I have have 4k sectors. e.g. Wow, they must be rather old, then. ;-) I know, i am not the only one ... https://serverfault.com/questions/1113068/how-to-find-page-size-of-my-ssd

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

DdB composed on 2023-02-16 09:15 (UTC+0100): > Felix Miata wrote: >> What physical boundaries do SSDs have to report? All I know about that are >> exposed >> are sector size and sector count. I have yet to find one where >> logical/physical >> were not 512B/512B. > That is what i meant:

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

Am 16.02.2023 um 08:22 schrieb Felix Miata: > What physical boundaries do SSDs have to report? All I know about that are > exposed > are sector size and sector count. I have yet to find one where > logical/physical > were not 512B/512B. That is what i meant: nowadays SSD's at least are AF

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

pa...@quillandmouse.com (12023-02-15): > Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end up > having to do every time Debian comes out with a new version Debian is not Ubuntu, major upgrade do not break the system. -- Nicolas George

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

DdB composed on 2023-02-16 07:44 (UTC+0100): > I do use (NVMe-) SSD, and i did partition it. > I did it to make sure, pages/partitions start on PHYSICAL boundaries, > not the logical ones reported to satisfy Windooze. What physical boundaries do SSDs have to report? All I know about that are

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

Am 16.02.2023 um 07:44 schrieb DdB: > I do use (NVMe-) SSD, and i did partition it. > I did it to make sure, pages/partitions start on PHYSICAL boundaries, > not the logical ones reported to satisfy Windooze. Not every model > reports correct hardware parameters to the OS. > > What i would

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

c/o > directory-tree layout, is there any further advantage > to be had in partitioning *these* drives? > > (I do understand somewhat the difference between the > drive types -- e.g., that SSDs don't assign functional > space.  I'm just not sure what other issue may apply

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:23:52PM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: Here's why you would partition a drive. Reinstalling (which I end up having to do every time Debian comes out with a new version) means overwriting the storage. I already acknowleged that people can do what they want

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:45:49 -0500 Michael Stone wrote: > > I don't personally think there's a point in partitioning any storage > device on a user system these days beyond what's required to boot. If > you want to do more, that's a personal preference. Being an SSD > doesn'

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

accustomed to and have always fastidiously *partitioned*. With my file groupings already well differentiated c/o directory-tree layout, is there any further advantage to be had in partitioning *these* drives? (I do understand somewhat the difference between the drive types -- e.g., that SSDs don't

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 15/02/2023 22:58, PMA wrote: is there any further advantage to be had in partitioning *these* drives? Although some people still prefer to leave about 20% of a SSD as raw unpartitioned space, so SSD can spare/level out sectors to that empty space, this is IMO on longer necessary, as you

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

On 16/2/23 07:45, Michael Stone wrote: I don't personally think there's a point in partitioning any storage device on a user system these days beyond what's required to boot. If you want to do more, that's a personal preference. Being an SSD doesn't really change things. I agree

Re: Partitioning an SSD?

, is there any further advantage to be had in partitioning *these* drives? (I do understand somewhat the difference between the drive types -- e.g., that SSDs don't assign functional space. I'm just not sure what other issue may apply.) I don't personally think there's a point in partitioning any

Partitioning an SSD?

in partitioning *these* drives? (I do understand somewhat the difference between the drive types -- e.g., that SSDs don't assign functional space. I'm just not sure what other issue may apply.) Thanks in advance for your time! Best regards, Peter Armstrong

Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

Hi, David Christensen wrote: > > So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g. > > MBR is "lowest common denominator". Felix Miata wrote: > I just found out from Asus that Intel 500 series chipsets do not support CSM. > Luckily my cloned NVME came from another NVME

Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

On 12/14/21 6:52 PM, Felix Miata wrote: David Christensen composed on 2021-12-14 18:40 (UTC-0800): Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote: Why MBR partitioning So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g. MBR is "lowest common denominator". I just found out

Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

David Christensen composed on 2021-12-14 18:40 (UTC-0800): > Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote: >> Why MBR partitioning > So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g. > MBR is "lowest common denominator". I just found out from Asus that Int

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

vice given above, there are occasions when installing > a newer version from an older system that the client might display > an out-of-date fingerprint. > ⁴ Don't press continue unless you're going to, say, abort. One could > get very confused with several main menu instances.

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

On Sat 16 Oct 2021 at 18:47:25 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Sat 16 Oct 2021 at 10:12:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > [Lots of snipping] > > > If you want to see a blow-by-blow example of the partitioner, you > > could revisit this post from a while back. IIRC the thread exercises > > most of the

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

gt; order i.e. first /home/richard then /home/richard/Downloads. > > I think my question was misunderstood. > Perhaps I should have repeated "Disk partitioning phase of installation" > in the body of my message. > > Rephrasing my question: > > Can I, during the

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

On Sat 16 Oct 2021 at 10:12:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: [Lots of snipping] > If you want to see a blow-by-blow example of the partitioner, you > could revisit this post from a while back. IIRC the thread exercises > most of the wrinkles that could occur if the user interface is >

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > My questions: > > > > > > > 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads be on its own partition? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The only thing to consider is that they are mounted in cor

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

Hello, On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 06:27:49AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > Can I, during the manual disk partitioning phase, specify that > /home/richard/Downloads be on its own partition *AND* the rest of > /home/richard/ be on its own partition? Yes, because when you specify what f

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

then /home/richard/Downloads. I think my question was misunderstood. Perhaps I should have repeated "Disk partitioning phase of installation" in the body of my message. Rephrasing my question: Can I, during the manual disk partitioning phase, specify that /home/richard/Downloads be

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

> > ├── Notebooks > > > > > └── Pictures > > > > > > > > > > My questions: > > > > > 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads be on its own partition? > > > > > > > > Yes. The only thing to consid

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

repeated "Disk partitioning phase of installation" in the body of my message. Rephrasing my question: Can I, during the manual disk partitioning phase, specify that /home/richard/Downloads be on its own partition *AND* the rest of /home/richard/ be on its own partition? A moun point can be

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

uestions: > > > > 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads be on its own partition? > > > > > > Yes. The only thing to consider is that they are mounted in correct > > > order i.e. first /home/richard then /home/richard/Downloads. > > > > I think my questi

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

is that they are mounted in correct > > order i.e. first /home/richard then /home/richard/Downloads. > > I think my question was misunderstood. > Perhaps I should have repeated "Disk partitioning phase of installation" in > the body of my message. > > Rephras

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

? Yes. The only thing to consider is that they are mounted in correct order i.e. first /home/richard then /home/richard/Downloads. I think my question was misunderstood. Perhaps I should have repeated "Disk partitioning phase of installation" in the body of my message. Rephrasing m

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

Richard Owlett writes: I routinely place /home on its own partition. Its structure resembles: /home/richard ├── Desktop ├── Documents ├── Downloads ├── Notebooks └── Pictures My questions: 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads bed on its own partition? Yes. The only thing to consider is that

Re: Disk partitioning phase of installation

On 16/10/2021 11:39, Richard Owlett wrote: I routinely place /home on its own partition. Its structure resembles: /home/richard ├── Desktop ├── Documents ├── Downloads ├── Notebooks └── Pictures My questions: 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads bed on its own partition? Of course. Create a

Disk partitioning phase of installation

I routinely place /home on its own partition. Its structure resembles: /home/richard ├── Desktop ├── Documents ├── Downloads ├── Notebooks └── Pictures My questions: 1. Can I have /home/richard/Downloads bed on its own partition? 2. How could I have found the answer? TIA

Re: Debian 10.3 text installer; guided partitioning does not work; manual partitioning doesn't make USB bootable

guided partitioning. This despite the fact I'm ready to wipe the target USB. I switched to the Busybox console (Ctrl+Alt+F2) and checked that the target USB was not mounted. Frustrating. My computer clearly can boot from both MBR (Windows partition is type 07h partition) and EFI partitions (the Debian

Re: Debian 10.3 text installer; guided partitioning does not work; manual partitioning doesn't make USB bootable

On Mi, 11 mar 20, 12:58:21, Alan Tu wrote: > > I have the second USB inserted into a different USB port. I need this > second USB to have my *.ucode firmware file on it, for my Intel wifi > chip. Therefore this second USB has a FAT32 partition at first. I would suggest you use an image that

Re: Debian 10.3 text installer; guided partitioning does not work; manual partitioning doesn't make USB bootable

On 2020-03-11 12:58, Alan Tu wrote: Hi, I need some ideas for getting Debian 10.3 to install and boot. I prefer the "CD-1" Debian Installer image, available via [1] or [2]. I would wipe the target drive, install Debian, and then install the Wi-Fi drivers. David [1]

Debian 10.3 text installer; guided partitioning does not work; manual partitioning doesn't make USB bootable

firmware file, gets onto the network, and now its time to partition. At this point I'm ready to erase the second USB and make it my permanent live USB. For whatever reason, the installer complains that the free space is too small [2], and guided partitioning does not work for me. Suppose the second USB

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On 10/25/19 7:44 AM, Wayne Sallee wrote:  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Wayne Sallee *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-10-23  10:37 AM  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

 Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Wayne Sallee *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-10-23  10:37 AM  Original

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On 10/23/2019 10:37 AM, Wayne Sallee wrote: > Select "Partition disk" > > You will then see a number of options; one being guided partitioning, > but no option for manual partition. What? This screen _is_ the manual partition editor! The "guided" option is d

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

 Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Christopher David Howie *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-10-22  12:43 PM On 10/13/19 6:56 PM, Wayne Sallee wrote: The non-graphical needs work too: There's

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On 10/13/19 6:56 PM, Wayne Sallee wrote: > The non-graphical needs work too: > There's no manual partitioning option without going first to guided > partitioning This is patently false. Every Debian setup I have done in the last ten years I've done with manual partitioning in the

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Hi. Posting HTML mail here is considered bad manners. Please configure your e-mail client appropriately. Also, please refrain from top-posting, this is a maillist, not your typical enterprisey spamfest. On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:00:13AM -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote: > I like Virtual Box

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Sallee wa...@waynesallee.com http://www.WayneSallee.com  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Peter Ehlert *To: * Wayne Sallee , Debian-user *CC: * *Date

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

on helping the developers making Debian more accessible. On 10/14/19 2:08 PM, Linux-Fan wrote: Wayne Sallee writes: The non-graphical needs work too: Hi, so here it's non-graphical... There's no manual partitioning option without going first to guided partitioning, so if you don't like

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

rtualbox; no need to burn any CD or USB. > > 8ec21625aadaddec8ba0de0ff915db03 debian-live-10.1.0-amd64-mate.iso > ab54364f4e066bba8d2010b5f8c0daad debian-live-9.2.0-amd64-mate.iso > > > Wayne Sallee > wa...@waynesallee.com > http://www.WayneSallee.com > > Original Mess

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Wayne Sallee writes: The non-graphical needs work too: Hi, so here it's non-graphical... There's no manual partitioning option without going first to guided partitioning, so if you don't like the way it wants to partition the drive, and you look for manual parition, that option

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Peter Ehlert *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-10-14  09:51 AM I am no expert but I am more than willing to follow along. Perhaps you have found a bug. I don't have an optical drive, I use USB

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

 Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Peter Ehlert *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-10-14  09:51 AM I am no expert but I am more than

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

I am no expert but I am more than willing to follow along. Perhaps you have found a bug. I don't have an optical drive, I use USB, but that should not matter. On 10/13/19 3:56 PM, Wayne Sallee wrote: The non-graphical needs work too: There's no manual partitioning option without going first

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

The non-graphical needs work too: There's no manual partitioning option without going first to guided partitioning, so if you don't like the way it wants to partition the drive, and you look for manual parition, that option is not available. Odly enough the manual

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

ind of results" , "in circles" etc. please explain Yes, it is a bit intimidating the first few times around, but pleas help us out. Wayne Sallee wa...@waynesallee.com http://www.WayneSallee.com  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manua

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

://www.WayneSallee.com  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From: * Linux-fan *To: * Debian-user *CC: * *Date: *  2019-9-29  11:51 AM Wayne Sallee writes

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On 29/09/2019 21:32, Liam O'Toole wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep, 2019 at 10:56:54 -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote: >> Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the >> installation. >> >> It's absolutely pathetic. >> >> Wayne Sallee >> wa...@

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On Sun, 29 Sep, 2019 at 10:56:54 -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote: > Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the > installation. > > It's absolutely pathetic. > > Wayne Sallee > wa...@waynesallee.com > http://www.WayneSallee.com > Thank you fo

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Wayne Sallee wrote: > Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the > installation. > > It's absolutely pathetic. Do you have specific suggestions for improvement? -dsr-

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Wayne Sallee writes: What partitioning tool are you talking about? Wayne Sallee mailto:wa...@waynesallee.com>wa...@waynesallee.com http://www.WayneSallee.com>http://www.WayneSallee.com When I think of the debian partitioning tool, I think of this one: https://lists.debian.org/debia

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 10:56:54 -0400 Wayne Sallee wrote: > Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the > installation. > > It's absolutely pathetic. Some more detail would be useful. For example,how would you do it better? Code submissions would be welcom

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

What partitioning tool are you talking about? Wayne Sallee wa...@waynesallee.com http://www.WayneSallee.com  Original Message  *Subject: *  Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke *From

Re: Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Your mail is a joke, I think debian partitionning tool is the best i tried. It's your taste but don't tell it's a joke. Le 29/09/2019 à 16:56, Wayne Sallee a écrit : Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the installation. It's absolutely pathetic. Wayne Sallee wa

Debian Installer, Manual Partitioning is a Joke

Debian really needs to work on the manual partitioning part of the installation. It's absolutely pathetic. Wayne Sallee wa...@waynesallee.com http://www.WayneSallee.com

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:36:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: > >and the destination ended up bigger, > >possibly because one or more of the backups on the source had been using some > >kind of hardlink de-dupe (I've ranted about hardlink trees being a problem in > >various backup topics on

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

Hello, On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:36:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: > Is anyone aware of a utility that can walk a file system and replace > identical files with hard links? As an alternative to doing this, you could consider using a filesystem with block-level de-duplication support. ZFS

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/14/2017 04:52 AM, The Wanderer wrote: On 2017-03-13 at 23:36, David Christensen wrote: Is anyone aware of a utility that can walk a file system and replace identical files with hard links? Try rdfind. It's in Debian; I don't use it myself, largely because the (accepted upstream years

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/14/2017 03:34 AM, David wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 14:36, David Christensen wrote: Doing a quick test, it appears that rsync copies hard linked files as if each were a different file: rsync -a hard-link-1/ hard-link-2 Here, 'man rsync' says: "Note that -a

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 2017-03-13 at 23:36, David Christensen wrote: > On 03/13/2017 02:01 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:00:45PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: >> and the destination ended up bigger, possibly because one or more >> of the backups on the source had been using some

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 14 March 2017 at 14:36, David Christensen wrote: > > Doing a quick test, it appears that rsync copies hard linked files as if > each were a different file: > > rsync -a hard-link-1/ hard-link-2 Here, 'man rsync' says: "Note that -a does not preserve hardlinks,

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/13/2017 02:01 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:00:45PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: I'd always put a step 0) in there: is imaging what you want to do? Consider a file-level backup with rsync (etc etc, as discussed elsewhere in this thread) I do imaging for

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:00:45PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: > >I'd always put a step 0) in there: is imaging what you want to do? Consider > >a file-level backup with rsync (etc etc, as discussed elsewhere in this > >thread) > > I do imaging for system disks. I do backups and archives for

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/10/2017 12:49 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:04:56PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: I use LUKS swap (random key) and root (passphrase). I think it's the piece of the boot chain that gives me the LUKS prompt for root (before the GRUB menu). You get that prompt

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:04:56PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: > I use LUKS swap (random key) and root (passphrase). I think it's the piece > of the boot chain that gives me the LUKS prompt for root (before the GRUB > menu). You get that prompt *before* GRUB? I use LUKS everywhere and only

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/08/2017 10:56 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Was that disk ever used for anything besides Jessie, not new or wiped first? The disk was wiped before installing Jesse. Run strings on it or view in a sector editor and you'll probably see grub somewhere, if it's a typical Linux installation that

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:46:32PM -0800, David Christensen wrote: > What is in blocks 1-101? I believe it's part of grub. My limited understanding of how it works is it's split up into separate stages designed to fit within the "holes" in a typical MBR layout, each stage having enough code to

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

Hi, David Christensen wrote: > Examining a Windows XP disk, the first partition (C:\) starts at block 63 > (track 1): > [...] > Number Start End SizeType File system Flags > 1 63s156296384s 156296322s primary ntfs boot That's an oldfashioned layout.

Re: MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

David Christensen composed on 2017-03-08 21:46 (UTC-0800): ... Examining a Jesse system drive, the first partition starts at block 2048 (1 MB = 2**20 bytes): 2017-03-08 21:30:04 root@jesse ~ # parted /dev/sda u s p Model: ATA SAMSUNG SSD UM41 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 31277232s Sector size

MBR partitioning, and content after partition table but before first partition

On 03/08/2017 03:02 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: David Christensen wrote: AFAIK when using MBR partitioning, the partition table (blocks 0-62) The MBR partition table resides in the first 512-bytes block. It may be extended by a chain of partitions starting at the Extended Partition of the MBR

Interpreting "Debian GNU/Linux Installation Guide" Section "B.4.7. Partitioning"

I was reading https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/apbs04.html.en#preseed-partman AND https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/debian-installer.git/plain/doc/devel/partman-auto-recipe.txt . # If the system has free space you can choose to only partition that space. # This is only

Re: Installer partitioning problem (was: System Dorked -- Help! (Interim solution!))

04 Martin Str|mberg wrote: > > > > I don't understand why you can't. I can create (and did) > > > > partitions of 200 MB size. I use the text based installer and > > > > manual partitioning. > > > > > > On a 4k/sector, 2 terabyte disk? I

Re: Installer partitioning problem (was: System Dorked -- Help! (Interim solution!))

d did) > > > partitions of 200 MB size. I use the text based installer and > > > manual partitioning. > > > > On a 4k/sector, 2 terabyte disk? I tried from 500m to 2g, it would > > not accept it. Finally I said to use 5% of the disk, and that > > work

Re: Installer partitioning problem (was: System Dorked -- Help! (Interim solution!))

In article <qnkxq-5oc...@gated-at.bofh.it> Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> wrote: > On Monday 26 October 2015 02:29:04 Martin Str|mberg wrote: > > I don't understand why you can't. I can create (and did) partitions of > > 200 MB size. I use the text based instal

Re: Installer partitioning problem (was: System Dorked -- Help! (Interim solution!))

d did) partitions of > > > 200 MB size. I use the text based installer and manual partitioning. > > > > On a 4k/sector, 2 terabyte disk? I tried from 500m to 2g, it would not > > accept it. Finally I said to use 5% of the disk, and that worked. Since > > Mm

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >