| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
<SNIP> |
| 3 |
> So sdb7 now ends at sector 976703935. Interestingly, I couldn’t use the |
| 4 |
> immediate next sector for sdb8: |
| 5 |
> start for sdb8 response by fdisk |
| 6 |
> 976703936 sector already allocated |
| 7 |
> 976703944 Value out of range. First sector... (default 976703999): |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The first one fdisk offered me was exactly 64 sectors behind the end sector of |
| 10 |
> sdb7 (976703999), which would leave a space of those mysterious 62 “empty” |
| 11 |
> sectors in between. So I used 976704000, which is divisable by 64 again, |
| 12 |
> though it’s not that relevant for a partition of 31 MB. :D |
| 13 |
<SNIP> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Again, this is probably unrelated to anything going on in this thread |
| 16 |
but I started wondering this morning if maybe fdisk could take a step |
| 17 |
forward with these newer disk technologies and build in some smarts |
| 18 |
about where to put partition boundaries. I.e. - if I'm using a 4K |
| 19 |
block size disk why not have fdisk do things better? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
My first thought was to look at the man page for fdisk and see who the |
| 22 |
author was. I did not find any email addresses. However I did find |
| 23 |
some very interesting comments about partitioning disks in the bugs |
| 24 |
section, quoted below. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't think I need what the 'bugs' author perceives as the |
| 27 |
advantages of fdisk so I think I'll try to focus a bit more on cfdisk. |
| 28 |
Interestingly cfdisk was the tool Willie pointed out when he kindly |
| 29 |
took the time to educate me on what was going on physically. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- Mark |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[QUOTE] |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
BUGS |
| 36 |
There are several *fdisk programs around. Each has its |
| 37 |
problems and strengths. Try |
| 38 |
them in the order cfdisk, fdisk, sfdisk. (Indeed, cfdisk is a |
| 39 |
beautiful program that |
| 40 |
has strict requirements on the partition tables it accepts, and |
| 41 |
produces high quality |
| 42 |
partition tables. Use it if you can. fdisk is a buggy program |
| 43 |
that does fuzzy things |
| 44 |
- usually it happens to produce reasonable results. Its |
| 45 |
single advantage is that it |
| 46 |
has some support for BSD disk labels and other non-DOS |
| 47 |
partition tables. Avoid it if |
| 48 |
you can. sfdisk is for hackers only - the user interface is |
| 49 |
terrible, but it is more |
| 50 |
correct than fdisk and more powerful than both fdisk and |
| 51 |
cfdisk. Moreover, it can be |
| 52 |
used noninteractively.) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
[/QUOTE] |
Archives