-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:33:30 -0400, TK wrote:
> The lesson is, before you make any change to a partition, make sure no
> partition from the same physical device is mounted. And use fdisk, not
> cfdisk (despite it's much more user-fr
I have just discovered a scenario where fdisk is safer/more useful than
cfdisk, through the hard way.
Let's say a 40G hard drive /dev/hde has two primary partitions and 20G
free space (as defined in /etc/fstab):
/dev/hde1: ext3 (10G) mounted on /mnt/dir1
/dev/hde2: ext3 (10G) mounted on
Le 02/07/2003 15:31, « Bo Peng » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Although its manual says 'windows OS required', redhat 9 can handle the
> controller and harddrive without problem.
*** Thanks.
> 1. transcode can not read (even 'ls' fail) files >2G from a fat32 partition.
*** That makes i
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:14:08AM +0200, Zoki wrote:
> > Yes. I am using a ATA/133 controller. But redhat recognized and set up
> > the controller, partitioned the harddrive with disk druid without any
> *** What is the brand of your controller?
> Software isn't released, it's allowed to escape
Le 01/07/2003 15:34, « Bo Peng » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Yes. I am using a ATA/133 controller. But redhat recognized and set up
> the controller, partitioned the harddrive with disk druid without any
*** What is the brand of your controller?
--
Cheers,
Zoran.
Software isn't relea
rectly. I am adding another harddrive
> > > and trying to repartition (actually LVMing) the 160G one. However, fdisk
> > > can not even display the partition table correctly.
Parted can partition the disk correctly.
--
Bo Peng
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EM
ally LVMing) the 160G one. However, fdisk
> > can not even display the partition table correctly.
> Your connecting the drive to either an ATA/133 or a SATA controller,
> right?
> If your putting the drive on an ATA/33, ATA/66 or ATA/100 controller then
> there isn't much
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bo Peng wrote:
> When I installed my redhat 9 system, disk druid recognized my 160G
> harddrive and made partition correctly. I am adding another harddrive
> and trying to repartition (actually LVMing) the 160G one. However, fdisk
> can not even display the par
Hi, everyone,
When I installed my redhat 9 system, disk druid recognized my 160G
harddrive and made partition correctly. I am adding another harddrive
and trying to repartition (actually LVMing) the 160G one. However, fdisk
can not even display the partition table correctly.
1. What disk
Hello,
I have 1 drive with C: 5GB, D:10GB and 5GB partition for Linux.
I installed Linux. When I came back to Windows I could only see C and not
anymore D.
I figure out that it has to do with fdisk anf type, but I don't know which one
to choose:
6,7 ,86 or 87 or??
Thank you for
Hello,
Wanted to add a couple more drives the IDE RAID under RH7.3, but can't the
OS to boot up. No problem though, it does dump me into a command mode to
fdisk the drives. The problem I am having is while in fdisk and after typing
't' to enter in the type of partition I want
On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 07:27, rpjday wrote:
>
> why is it that one needs to reboot after creating a new
> partition with fdisk? i'm assuming that, in addition to
> updating the physical partition on the hard drive, one also
> must update some kind of in-core kernel table
The need to reboot is not OS specific, so I think that it is hardware
related. In short, reboot.
Mark
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, rpjday wrote:
>
> why is it that one needs to reboot after creating a new
> partition with fdisk? i'm assuming that, in addition to
> updating the p
why is it that one needs to reboot after creating a new
partition with fdisk? i'm assuming that, in addition to
updating the physical partition on the hard drive, one also
must update some kind of in-core kernel table that reflects
the disk layout.
is there any way around the rebo
107* 966*4.2BSD 1024 819216
>--
>
>I thought it was showing up like this because if freeBSD or something.
>What does this mean? and better yet how do I get it to show the standard
>fdisk output?
It means Lin
e
3 new drive
7 controller
The system boots and see's both drives, so now the next step is to
repartition the new drive, but when I fdisk /dev/sdb and print the
partiton table I get:
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sdb: 255 heads, 63 sec
The original problem that I had was that the DOS partition was wrecked, so I
couldnt get any program to work, I had to compleatly empty the partition
table and start the installation again, then the redhat fdisk worked great.
Thanks for the suggestions anyway.:)
sharon
-Original Message
Boot magic is a good alternative.
Fdisk that comes with dos does not work properly for our use in linux
partitioning
Another alternative is to use the fdisk provided with Redhat in the CD its
in the subfolder Dostools
that works well
Regards
Ani
> -Original Message-
> From: nort
boot up your computer with windows typed user friendly interface.
there you can
do whatever you want.
enjoy !
- Original Message -
From: dodo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gated.redhat-list
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:53 PM
Subject: fdis
i fixed it- if anyone has the same prob- i have the script
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of dodo
Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 3:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: fdisk
As I install redhat I get an error that tells me the logical
As I install redhat I get an error that tells me the logical partition is
type 0. and that this error is not defined by anaconda. How do I define
partitions with fdisk (dos) or can I delete the partitioning altogether.
I try to delete partitions in fdisk but is says I cant delete an extended
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have linux 2.4.8 compiled for support of the Amiga file system, and
partition format.
I can mount the disks just fine i.e. "mount -t affs /dev/sdb1 /disk". But
when running fdisk on /dev/sdb I cannot view the partition table, no
Hello.
I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
brun.dyndns.org
and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
FDISK /MBR...
I get the lilo prompt but when I choose dos nothing happens. Linux is
booted nicely..
Is there a way of restoring the DOS-MBR in an
lo.conf"
shows you how to do it in one example.
Mike W
Stefan Backstrom wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
> brun.dyndns.org
> and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
> FDISK /MBR...
>
> I ge
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ted Gervais wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2001 10:00 am, you wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
> > brun.dyndns.org
> > and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
> >
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Stefan Backstrom wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
> brun.dyndns.org
> and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
> FDISK /MBR...
>
> I get the lilo prompt but when I choose dos nothi
On Friday 04 May 2001 10:00 am, you wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
> brun.dyndns.org
> and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
> FDISK /MBR...
Are you doing this after booting to DOS using a DOS boot d
and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
> FDISK /MBR...
>
> I get the lilo prompt but when I choose dos nothing happens. Linux is
> booted nicely..
> Is there a way of restoring the DOS-MBR in another way ?
>
> The reason for doing the upgrade of the lilo
Hello.
I scrued up my MBR when trying to install the latest lilo from
brun.dyndns.org
and I can't replace the boot sector with the DOS command
FDISK /MBR...
I get the lilo prompt but when I choose dos nothing happens. Linux is
booted nicely..
Is there a way of restoring the DOS-MBR in an
created device is not
recognized. Oh it is listed in cfdisk fdisk and even sfdisk. But an sfdisk
-R /dev/sda comes back with :
"BLKRRPART: Device or resource busy"
Any ideas as to what I am doing wrong?
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Jamison
Informix Software, Inc.
Enterprise Support Eng
k at what you enter
and don't see what it is telling you that you did wrong. But, as soon as
you tell fdisk to show you the partition sizes in sectors, you'll notice
that you really don't start at 0 for the first one, but 63 sectors, i.e.,
one track, into the cylinder.
After the first p
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Michael Burger wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:26:30 +0800 (SGT), Gregory Hosler wrote:
>
> >no, it's not a "bad" thing. It means that due to the sizes you specified for
> >the partition, fdisk needed to allocate part of a cylinder (and the r
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:26:30 +0800 (SGT), Gregory Hosler wrote:
>no, it's not a "bad" thing. It means that due to the sizes you specified for
>the partition, fdisk needed to allocate part of a cylinder (and the rest of
>that cylinder is waster/unused).
>
>This is y
an even cylinder
>> > boundary.
>>
>>
>
> Is that a bad thing? Perhaps recovery from some sort of low level problem
> might
> be easier ro what? I have these also. I think I usually set partition sizes
> in
> MB. Should I be doing some thing different? I
rpjday wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, rpjday wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Fred Edmister wrote:
> >
> > > From my experience, the +'s mean that when the system was
> > > configured, those partitions were set to expand to fill the disk should
> > > there be any room left... I have one
Never said I was perfect :) Now I know what it REALLY
means Musta just been coincidence that my partitions that were
expandable were also on odd blocks! ROFL But OH what a coincidence! :)
Fred
At 06:03 PM 12/21/00 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, rpjday wro
Excellent...thanks.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:03:29 -0500 (EST), rpjday wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, rpjday wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Fred Edmister wrote:
>>
>> > From my experience, the +'s mean that when the system was
>> > configured, those partitions were set to expand to fill t
ormal.
>>
>>However...here it is. If anyone has an answer, I'd sure love to hear it:
>>
>>---
>>
>>Here is a capture of 'fdisk' for the boot drive on the front end
>>machine...
>>
>>D
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, rpjday wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Fred Edmister wrote:
>
> > From my experience, the +'s mean that when the system was
> > configured, those partitions were set to expand to fill the disk should
> > there be any room left... I have one partition set on my servers
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Fred Edmister wrote:
> From my experience, the +'s mean that when the system was
> configured, those partitions were set to expand to fill the disk should
> there be any room left... I have one partition set on my servers to
> expand, I'm not sure what the details a
my systems, I assume
>them to be normal.
>
>However...here it is. If anyone has an answer, I'd sure love to hear it:
>
>---
>
>Here is a capture of 'fdisk' for the boot drive on the front end
>machine...
>
>Disk /d
27;d sure love to hear it:
>
> ---
>
> Here is a capture of 'fdisk' for the boot drive on the front end
> machine...
>
> Disk /dev/hda: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 1652 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
>
>Device
Here is a capture of 'fdisk' for the boot drive on the front end
machine...
Disk /dev/hda: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 1652 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
Device Boot BeginStart End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda111 712 358816+ 83 Li
Thanks for the input.
As I mentioned in another post, I used cfdisk which worked in a way I
had expected. When I replaced my hda8 with a smaller partition, the new
partition was given the same name; hda8. Thanks for that. ;-)
Of course, if I then want to fill the remaining 'hole' from the end of
just a followup to the previous post about mounting filesystems
by label, rather than by actual /dev/hda? name. assuming that
/dev/hda7 == /home (which it does on my box), first you label
that partition:
# e2label /dev/hda7 home (or whatever you want to call it)
# e2label /dev/hda7
home
Hi,
My solution:
man fdisk ;-)
It said "don't use fdisk because it's buggy" (!!) and also "use cfdisk
instead".
Which I did. It behaved a little bit more predicatable.
Thanks anyway. ;-)
Gustav
Gustav Schaffter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have 9 partitio
da8) and replace it
> with a new partition, a lot smaller than the existing one plus one
> entirely new partition. This would logically split the existing
> partition in two new partitions.
>
> I use fdisk (and so far I haven't saved anything, since it doesn't do
> what I&#
ng
partition in two new partitions.
I use fdisk (and so far I haven't saved anything, since it doesn't do
what I'd expected it to do.)
I can delete hda8. When I print the remainder, I can see that hda9 has
been renumbered to hda8 and hda10 has become hda9. (!!)
Is this working as e
> Thanks. I assume you meant /tmp/sda, instead of /dev/sda.
I did, I'm a moron :)
Matt
--
Matt HoushMorpheus.Net Administrator
email: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) web: (http://jaeger.morpheus.net/)
-
## er-chan # at ## scn.org ### at usa.net ##
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Vidiot wrote:
> It was mentioned here that if you don't like disk druid (like me) and
> you want to use fdisk, just go to one of the other consoles and run fdisk.
##If at the beginning of the
> During the Red Hat install, drives are accessed as devices in the /tmp
>directory, rather than /dev. So, if you want to use fdisk during
>install, switch to the second console and run something like 'fdisk
>/dev/sda' to use it.
>Matt
Thanks. I assume you meant
During the Red Hat install, drives are accessed as devices in the /tmp
directory, rather than /dev. So, if you want to use fdisk during
install, switch to the second console and run something like 'fdisk
/dev/sda' to use
It was mentioned here that if you don't like disk druid (like me) and
you want to use fdisk, just go to one of the other consoles and run fdisk.
Well, I tried that this weekend and it doesn't work, because fdisk wants
a device name and /dev/hda is not valid at that point. If there
Jim Baxter wrote:
> Hi
> Thanks to those who told me how to add a drive to an existing system.
>
> We seem to have a problem with fdisk of /dev/sdb ( the new drive)
> Fdisk defaults to only 20 MB and will not save anything we do to the drive.
> It is a Seagate st34573w 4+g
Downloaded a utility from http://www.users.interact.com/~ranish/part
that someone here pointed me to. Managed to fiddle the partition
table and undo the confusion that 95's FDISK had created.
And thanks to all who suggested to do it differently next time,
it really helped me fix the pr
Initially I used Win98 fdisk to set up the primary partition because I
wanted fat32 partition but no extended nor logical drives then install
Win98. When completed I start installing RH Linux using Disk Druid
allowing me to make logical drives such as Dos 16=>32 and linux native
boot, root, s
Quoting Jasper Jans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> | In DOS, used FDISK to make a new logical drive in
> | the extended partition, rebooted and formatted it.
> |
> | Turns out that D: is now /dev/hda5, and thus my entire
> | Linux installation is toast. I haven't written to D:
&
| In DOS, used FDISK to make a new logical drive in
| the extended partition, rebooted and formatted it.
|
| Turns out that D: is now /dev/hda5, and thus my entire
| Linux installation is toast. I haven't written to D:
| yet, is there any hope?
the f-word is in here... formatted.. hence
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Ed Schernau wrote:
> Had Linux installed to /dev/hda5, with a /dev/hda6
> as swap.
>
> In DOS, used FDISK to make a new logical drive in
> the extended partition, rebooted and formatted it.
>
> Turns out that D: is now /dev/hda5, and thus my entire
&g
Had Linux installed to /dev/hda5, with a /dev/hda6
as swap.
In DOS, used FDISK to make a new logical drive in
the extended partition, rebooted and formatted it.
Turns out that D: is now /dev/hda5, and thus my entire
Linux installation is toast. I haven't written to D:
yet, is there any
partitions!
Bill Ward
-Original Message-
From: Jim Baxter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 10:42 AM
To: Redhat
Cc: recipient.list.not.shown; @nswcphdn.navy.mil
Subject: fdisk does not save partitions
Hi
Thanks to those who told me how to add a drive to an
Hi
Thanks to those who told me how to add a drive to an existing system.
We seem to have a problem with fdisk of /dev/sdb ( the new drive)
Fdisk defaults to only 20 MB and will not save anything we do to the drive.
It is a Seagate st34573w 4+gig SCSI.
Fdisk gets errors about unknown partition
Thank you for your help. I solved the problem anyway
All I did was use nt workstation
It formatted my old linux partitions
Use Fdisk again. It worked
Looking forward to your feedback.
dannyh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 14:56 16/02/2000 -0700, Bruce Bauer wrote:
>Go to Undocumented FDISK
Go to Undocumented FDISK at
http://www.jacobsen.sdn.dk/fdisk
and download and use his INSTHELP utility.
> Hello,
>
> Situation
>
> - I have a old 2.1 g hard disk which was previously installed with Redhat 5.2
> - I have to use this old hard disk and install win 95 for someo
Hello,
Situation
- I have a old 2.1 g hard disk which was previously installed with Redhat 5.2
- I have to use this old hard disk and install win 95 for someone
- I put in the boot disk typed "fdisk /mbr" to restore the master boot record
- then typed fdisk
- I can only see the
Zaigui Wang wrote:
> I have a 13G hard disk. When I use linux fdisk to do the partitions, it
> seems like the maximun cylinder number allowed is 1024, which ends up with
> only about 8G. Where does the rest of the disk go? How to fix this
> problem?
I believe that the kernel has a
Thanks. I will try this out.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Dave Reed wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:20:32 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Zaigui Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I have a 13G hard disk. When I use linux fdisk to do the partitions, it
> > seems like th
Did you try flashing your bios with the most recent version? How old is
your mother board?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Zaigui Wang wrote:
>
> I have a 13G hard disk. When I use linux fdisk to do the partitions, it
> seems like the maximun cylinder number allowed is 1024, which ends up wi
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:20:32 -0600 (CST)
> From: Zaigui Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have a 13G hard disk. When I use linux fdisk to do the partitions, it
> seems like the maximun cylinder number allowed is 1024, which ends up with
> only about 8G. Where does the
I have a 13G hard disk. When I use linux fdisk to do the partitions, it
seems like the maximun cylinder number allowed is 1024, which ends up with
only about 8G. Where does the rest of the disk go? How to fix this
problem?
Thanks.
--
| Zaigui Wang |
| www.cs.siu.edu/~wang
nother long story and for now I'm satisfied. Hopefully
> RedHat will allows us to 'choose' in the future our prefered disk
> partitioning tool (Disk Druid or fdisk).
Is fdisk no longer available under the text mode installer? I had
thought that it was...
MSG
--
Computers
Guin, Jay wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply. When I deleted the hda1 partition through
> Linux's fdisk, I did not create any new partition on those sectors.
> My new partition table looks like the following:
>
> Original partition (before using fdisk):
>
> Dev.
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Guin, Jay wrote:
>In order to make sure that I did nothing to my dos partition (Windows
>95) I used the "d" option (delete) in fdisk to get rid off hda1. I
>feel that this is the mistake I made. Thereafter I repartitioned hda2
>for all the appropria
ition (hda1/win95) in Disk Druid and I deleted it.
Well... I thought I had lost the entire system, but, I rebooted using an
old win95 boot disk, which got me as far as sitting at the a:\> prompt.
I tried restoring the MBR using fdisk: "fdisk c: /mbr". Didn't work.
However,
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Guin, Jay wrote:
> I used fdisk to partition my only harddrive. Thereafter I proceeded to
I'm going to make some assumptions that are not made clear by your email.
1) You already had Windows 95 installed on your single hard drive
2) You installed Linux on your sin
>So basically I have repartitioned hda2. Do you think win95 on hda1 is
>lost?
You might try using Linux fdisk to recreate the hda1 partition and then
using "t" to change the type to the type of partition it was. Hopefully
it wasn't a FAT32 partition. With any luck, none
Thanks for your reply. When I deleted the hda1 partition through
Linux's fdisk, I did not create any new partition on those sectors.
My new partition table looks like the following:
Original partition (before using fdisk):
Dev. BootBegin Start End B
it. The following
> >is a description of the problem:
> >
> >I used fdisk to partition my only harddrive. Thereafter I proceeded to
> >install Linux on the newly created partition. When I reached the point
> >on creating the Linux partitions this is what I saw.
nux. I was wondering if
>anyone can give some advice on how to recover from it. The following
>is a description of the problem:
>
>I used fdisk to partition my only harddrive. Thereafter I proceeded to
>install Linux on the newly created partition. When I reached the point
>
I ran into trouble while trying to install Linux. I was wondering if
anyone can give some advice on how to recover from it. The following
is a description of the problem:
I used fdisk to partition my only harddrive. Thereafter I proceeded to
install Linux on the newly created partition. When
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> This is the message that I get when I make fdisk /dev/hda and try to
> modify the partition table. What should I do, I reboot, but no change
> !!! Nothing obviuos in the man.
> The partition table has been altered!
> Calling ioctl() to re-read
Hello,
This is the message that I get when I make fdisk /dev/hda
and try to modify the partition table. What should I do, I reboot,
but no change !!!
Nothing obviuos in the man.
The partition table has been altered!
Calling ioctl() to re-read partition table.
Syncing disks.
Re-read table
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, james hartley (sys admin) wrote:
> Vidiot wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm curious as to how you got in this state. I didn't know that fdisk
> > would let you put in bad numbers. Whenever I've used it, after doing
> > hda1 (using the
>Yes I would like that but unfortunatly the fdisk utility puts in the
>screwed up numbers that I listed in the last post automatically.
Interesting. I never really noticed before, since it has always worked.
Here is what my fdisks are for my three disks:
/dev/hda11
Vidiot wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to how you got in this state. I didn't know that fdisk
> would let you put in bad numbers. Whenever I've used it, after doing
> hda1 (using the above example), putting in the next partition would give
> you 1085 as the choice
>HELLO: I am trying to load redhat 4.1 on a 4.3 gig drive. during the
>partitioning using fdisk I noticed that the begin start and end fields
>had overlapping in the begin field. specifically
>
>Device BootBegin Start End Blocks Id System
>/tmp/hda1
HELLO: I am trying to load redhat 4.1 on a 4.3 gig drive. during the
partitioning using fdisk I noticed that the begin start and end fields
had overlapping in the begin field. specifically
Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
/tmp/hda1 1 1 1084
I have a second disk drive I have been using for DOS
partitions. I had created it using Windows95 fdisk as an extended
partition
and created 3 logical paritions inside of it (G,H,I). I used Partition
Magic to
delete the I partition and then shrunk the extended partition to create
free space at
88 matches
Mail list logo
