Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #3077 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-02-13 08:12 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware
maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-26 20:22 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 16:02 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-26 21:02 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 00:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:08 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 04:03 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 05:53 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 12:48 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 14:50 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Vilmos Soti <vilmos@soti.ca> - 2016-05-26 12:40 -0700
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-26 22:29 +0200
LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:44 -0400
Re: LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-26 22:27 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 06:05 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-27 08:36 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 12:17 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 18:49 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:08 -0500
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:11 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-28 09:22 -0500
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 20:30 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 00:05 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 04:45 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 07:26 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:15 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 10:25 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 11:14 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 13:52 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 18:46 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 19:57 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 20:15 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2016-05-28 12:04 -0700
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 22:47 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-29 07:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-29 13:48 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-04 09:50 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 10:10 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 13:53 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:18 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 18:53 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-05 17:58 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 14:09 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-06 10:32 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:48 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-08 22:23 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 15:55 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 17:41 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 17:23 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-06 22:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 21:51 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 04:54 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 08:43 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 19:04 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:30 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-08 07:08 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 15:50 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-05 16:03 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions noSpam@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:57 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 17:10 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-28 18:07 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 21:33 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions novinhael@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 18:10 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2017-02-08 07:58 -0600
Re: maximum number of partitions faeychild <faeychild@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-02-13 15:23 +1100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:04 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:12 +0100
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400 |
| Subject | maximum number of partitions |
| Message-ID | <87fut4kado.fsf@engels.histomat.net> |
I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. # cfdisk shows them to have the number and sizes I want: sda1 Boot Primary ext4 [boot] 1003.49 sda5 Logical Linux 20003.89 ... sda13 Logical Linux 300000.64 Next I format them. mkfs.ext4 commands on partitions 1-9 return: ... Allocating group tables: done Writing inode tables: done Creating journal (32768 blocks): done Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done However, cfdisk then shows only sda1 was actually formatted: sda1 Boot Primary ext4 [boot] 1003.49 sda5 Logical Linux 20003.89 sda6 Logical Linux 60003.42 ... I skip /dev/sda10, which is swap. Format on /dev/sda11 returns: mke2fs 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012) /dev/sda11 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! However: # mount | grep sda returns nothing. Format of /dev/sda12 and /dev/sda13 returns: mke2fs 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012) Could not stat /dev/sda12 --- No such file or directory The device apparently does not exist; did you specify it correctly? However, # cfdisk /dev/sda shows the partitions sda11 and sda12. Haines Brown
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 20:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfrj1d-96m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3077 |
On 2016-05-26 19:16, Haines Brown wrote: > I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. > I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. # cfdisk shows them to have > the number and sizes I want: Looks like bugs. You will have to tell what distribution and releases you are using, so that people can compare. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 16:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87bn3sk2oy.fsf@engels.histomat.net> |
| In reply to | #3078 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> writes: > On 2016-05-26 19:16, Haines Brown wrote: >> I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. >> I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. # cfdisk shows them to have >> the number and sizes I want: > > Looks like bugs. You will have to tell what distribution and releases > you are using, so that people can compare. Bugs? I've used these utilities plenty of times before without a problem. In fact, a partition table on this same disk several weeks ago. I'm running Debian Wheezy: 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.78-1 i686 GNU/Linux. The mke2fs is version 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012); the cfdisk is from util-linux 2.20.1. I deleted all partitions and run fdisk instead of cfdisk to rebuild a couple. This strange extended primary partition shows up that is invisible to cfdisk. Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 63 1959929 979933+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 1959930 41030009 19535040 5 Extended /dev/sda5 1959993 41030009 19535008+ 83 Linux # partprobe -s /dev/sda Error: Partition(s) 11 on /dev/sda have been written, but we have been unable to inform the kernel of the change, probably because it/they are in use. As a result, the old partition(s) will remain in use. You should reboot now before making further changes. # mount | grep sda returns nothing. Haines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni7o9m$g93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3080 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:02:37 -0400, Haines Brown wrote: > I deleted all partitions and run fdisk instead of cfdisk to rebuild a > couple. This strange extended primary partition shows up that is > invisible to cfdisk. > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sda1 * 63 1959929 979933+ 83 Linux > /dev/sda2 1959930 41030009 19535040 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 1959993 41030009 19535008+ 83 Linux Think of that extended partition as a container which is needed to keep your logical partitions. A DOS partition table can only contain up to four primary partitions, but one of those primary partitions can be an extended partition which can contain several logical partitions. > # partprobe -s /dev/sda > > Error: Partition(s) 11 on /dev/sda have been written, but we have been > unable to inform the kernel of the change, probably because it/they are > in use. This is probably your big problem. What your kernel really thinks about your partition table can be studied by looking at /proc/partitions. Creating any filesystem when your kernel is in this state will most likely mean that you start writing at the disk positions of your old partitions. Doing so you will have a real mess after next reboot when your new partition table is being used together with file systems placed on the positions of your old partition table. > As a result, the old partition(s) will remain in use. You > should reboot now before making further changes. > > # mount | grep sda returns nothing. So, what is the complete output from mount? What is the complete output from "cat /proc/partitions"? regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 00:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5cak1d-ba1.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3082 |
On 2016-05-26 23:02, Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:02:37 -0400, Haines Brown wrote: >> # partprobe -s /dev/sda >> >> Error: Partition(s) 11 on /dev/sda have been written, but we have been >> unable to inform the kernel of the change, probably because it/they are >> in use. > > This is probably your big problem. What your kernel really thinks about > your partition table can be studied by looking at /proc/partitions. > Creating any filesystem when your kernel is in this state will most > likely mean that you start writing at the disk positions of your old > partitions. Doing so you will have a real mess after next reboot when > your new partition table is being used together with file systems placed > on the positions of your old partition table. I concur. Also, yes, we should get the full output messages from the commands used, not snippets. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 07:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877fefkbb3.fsf@engels.histomat.net> |
| In reply to | #3082 |
> > # partprobe -s /dev/sda
> >
> > Error: Partition(s) 11 on /dev/sda have been written, but we have been
> > unable to inform the kernel of the change, probably because it/they are
> > in use.
> >
> This is probably your big problem. What your kernel really thinks about
> your partition table can be studied by looking at /proc/partitions.
$ cat /proc/partitions
major minor #blocks name
11 0 544266 sr0
8 16 976762584 sdb
8 17 975872 sdb1
8 18 9767520 sdb2
8 19 1 sdb3
8 21 58592256 sdb5
8 22 58592256 sdb6
8 23 39061504 sdb7
8 24 19529728 sdb8
8 25 58592256 sdb9
8 26 31249408 sdb10
8 27 97654784 sdb11
8 28 195311616 sdb12
8 0 976762584 sda
8 11 195310206 sda11
8 32 1953481728 sdc
8 33 1953480704 sdc1
This /proc/partitions comes as a surprise to me. /dev/sda11 is a
fossil. At this point the disk has only a /dev/sda1 partition and
nothing else. My impulse would be to remove the line from
/proc/partition.
$ mount
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime)
udev on /dev type devtmpfs
(rw,relatime,size=10240k,nr_inodes=188865,mode=755)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts
(rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,size=1647748k,mode=755)
/dev/disk/by-uuid/b0673fe5-e6b2-42a5-9121-5fcf32b7135d on / type ext4
(rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
tmpfs on /run/lock type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=5120k)
tmpfs on /run/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=9545360k)
/dev/sdb5 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb11 on /info type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb12 on /storage type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb8 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb6 on /usr type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb9 on /usr/local type ext4
(rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
/dev/sdb7 on /var type ext4 (rw,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered)
rpc_pipefs on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw,relatime)
/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/backup type ext4
(rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered,user=haines)
At the point the problematic HDD is not mounted.
# cfdisk /dev/sda
Name Flags Part Type FS Type [Label] Size (MB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sda1 Boot Primary ext4 [boot] 100002.96
Pri/Log Free Space 900201.94*
# mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/
mount: special device /dev/sda1 does not exist
# mount /dev/sda11 /mnt/
/dev/sda11 looks like swapspace - not mounted
Haines Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 04:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <871t4n908f.fld@barrow.com> |
| In reply to | #3089 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: > > # mount /dev/sda11 /mnt/ > /dev/sda11 looks like swapspace - not mounted For grins and giggles, what does "swapon -s" produce? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 09:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87y46viqfn.fsf@engels.histomat.net> |
| In reply to | #3091 |
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: > Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >> >> # mount /dev/sda11 /mnt/ >> /dev/sda11 looks like swapspace - not mounted > > For grins and giggles, what does "swapon -s" produce? # swapon -s Filename Type Size Used Priority /dev/sdb10 partition 31249404 0 -1 /dev/sda11 partition 134217724 0 -2 Yes, that does produce a grin/giggle, but what does it mean? The HDD at this point only has a single primary partition. So the misinformation is local. Is swapon -s simply reading /proc/swaps? That is, are /proc/swaps and /proc/partitions the primary repositories of information so that I might simply delete undesirable lines? I want to avoid rebooting and interrupting work, while others may run a server and are unable to reboot. Surely there is some way to do a minor lobotomy on a running system. Haines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 05:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87wpmf7gkn.fld@barrow.com> |
| In reply to | #3093 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: > >> Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >>> >>> # mount /dev/sda11 /mnt/ >>> /dev/sda11 looks like swapspace - not mounted >> >> For grins and giggles, what does "swapon -s" produce? > > # swapon -s > Filename Type Size Used Priority > /dev/sdb10 partition 31249404 0 -1 > /dev/sda11 partition 134217724 0 -2 > >Yes, that does produce a grin/giggle, but what does it mean? The HDD at >this point only has a single primary partition. So the misinformation is >local. The biggest part of the grin is that you've found your problem. The /dev/sda11 partition is not mounted as a filesystem... but it is mounted as swap space. You will want to look to see if that is happening automatically at boot, or if it's just something you did once. Check /etc/fstab to see if it is listed there. And run "swapoff /dev/sda11" to clear all the problems it is causing. Then use fdisk (or cfdisk) to re-write the partition table again. >Is swapon -s simply reading /proc/swaps? That is, are /proc/swaps and >/proc/partitions the primary repositories of information so that I might >simply delete undesirable lines? I want to avoid rebooting and >interrupting work, while others may run a server and are unable to >reboot. Surely there is some way to do a minor lobotomy on a running >system. You can't just "delete" lines. They are telling you what the kernel status is. When you change the kernel status it will automatically be reflected in what can be read from the pseudo files in the /proc directory. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 12:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87twhjih1b.fsf@engels.histomat.net> |
| In reply to | #3094 |
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: > Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: >> >>> Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> # mount /dev/sda11 /mnt/ >>>> /dev/sda11 looks like swapspace - not mounted >>> >>> For grins and giggles, what does "swapon -s" produce? >> >> # swapon -s >> Filename Type Size Used Priority >> /dev/sdb10 partition 31249404 0 -1 >> /dev/sda11 partition 134217724 0 -2 > The biggest part of the grin is that you've found your > problem. The /dev/sda11 partition is not mounted as a > filesystem... but it is mounted as swap space. You will > want to look to see if that is happening automatically > at boot, or if it's just something you did once. Check > /etc/fstab to see if it is listed there. And run > "swapoff /dev/sda11" to clear all the problems it is > causing. Then use fdisk (or cfdisk) to re-write the > partition table again. Yes, Thank you! That solved the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0esl1d-3rl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3089 |
On 2016-05-27 13:08, Haines Brown wrote: > $ cat /proc/partitions > major minor #blocks name > > 11 0 544266 sr0 > 8 16 976762584 sdb > 8 17 975872 sdb1 > 8 18 9767520 sdb2 > 8 19 1 sdb3 > 8 21 58592256 sdb5 > 8 22 58592256 sdb6 > 8 23 39061504 sdb7 > 8 24 19529728 sdb8 > 8 25 58592256 sdb9 > 8 26 31249408 sdb10 > 8 27 97654784 sdb11 > 8 28 195311616 sdb12 > 8 0 976762584 sda > 8 11 195310206 sda11 > 8 32 1953481728 sdc > 8 33 1953480704 sdc1 > > This /proc/partitions comes as a surprise to me. /dev/sda11 is a > fossil. At this point the disk has only a /dev/sda1 partition and > nothing else. My impulse would be to remove the line from > /proc/partition. Just reboot. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vilmos Soti <vilmos@soti.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lqzircobem.fsf@gyrus.msmri.medicine.ubc.ca> |
| In reply to | #3077 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> writes: > I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. > I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. # cfdisk shows them to have > the number and sizes I want: I have disks with 20 partitions, and they are happily working. I use fdisk. Vilmos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ni7mau$cuv$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3077 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. >I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. # cfdisk shows them to have >the number and sizes I want: > > sda1 Boot Primary ext4 [boot] 1003.49 > sda5 Logical Linux 20003.89 > ... > sda13 Logical Linux 300000.64 Any reasons why you're not using LVM? Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 07:44 -0400 |
| Subject | LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] |
| Message-ID | <8737p3k9o5.fsf_-_@engels.histomat.net> |
| In reply to | #3081 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > Any reasons why you're not using LVM? > > Greetings > Marc Twice I've been asked why I don't use LVM, but to reply requires a separate thread. Back in perhaps 2007 I decided against pursuing LVM because it seemed people were having problems with it, although I gather they have been largely resolved by now. But I just never had the time or reason to keep abreast of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I like direct access to partitions because my automatic backups select just some of them. I would like to use a primary partition for an installation of OS/2 (for a reason). I don't like to add more layers between myself and hardware (being an ex-electronics technician). It does not seem an end-game if a partition gets corrupted. Most importantly, I know of no compelling reason why LVM is necessary. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise, but I have not seen a reason to turn to LVM. I've run a dozen partitions for years and see no reason not to. Haines Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] |
| Message-ID | <ni9rcr$t74$3@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3090 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> wrote: >Back in perhaps 2007 I decided against pursuing LVM because it seemed >people were having problems with it, although I gather they have been >largely resolved by now. But I just never had the time or reason to keep >abreast of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > >I like direct access to partitions because my automatic backups select >just some of them. I would like to use a primary partition for an >installation of OS/2 (for a reason). I don't like to add more layers >between myself and hardware (being an ex-electronics technician). It >does not seem an end-game if a partition gets corrupted. Most >importantly, I know of no compelling reason why LVM is necessary. LVM is not necessary. It is just vastly more flexible than having static partitions. You'll need device mapper anyway for almost anything that is more advanced than just having unencrypted local disks, and I have never had a single problem with it since I started using it back in 2001 nor have I heard of substantial problems that were not caused by people who have grossly misunderstood how LVM is to be used. That being said, deciding for or against LVM is a matter of style, just don't be surprised about people not having experience with tens of _partitions_ on a single disk and asking why you don't use LVM, as it's the canonical way to manage a disk when one has a faible for dedicated file systems for everything. I am among those having this faible, but even I am slowly moving away from it. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fut4cxxi.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #3077 |
Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> writes: > I may have exceeded the maximum number of partitions on a new HDD. > I partition a new HDD with 13 partitions. AFAICT the actual size limit is a bit more than that. But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 06:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni8o3t$ttr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3083 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good idea. Some reasons not to have everything on your / partition: 1) If you fill up your single partition by placing big stuff in /tmp, /var/tmp or just by having system logs filling up your log partition you will no longer be able to create or modify files in /etc. Not being able to modify /etc/mtab will give you trouble when trying to mount or umount directories and that should be done at each reboot. Also having the partition where your home directory filled up means that you will not be able to open any new windows in X. 2) If a partition gets a broken file system, maybe by a power outage you might not be able to fix it without booting from some other media if that partition is your / partition. For those reasons I try to keep my / partition rather small. Some directories like /dev, /etc, /bin and /lib has to be on the / partition, but the following directories might be a good idea to place on partitions of their own: /usr because it is a rather big partition /opt because it could be a rather big partition /var because that partition takes much writes and it could be big /tmp bacause it takes much writes and could be big /home if it resides on a local drive regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 08:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a8jcc5qa.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #3085 |
Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> writes: > On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. > > IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good > idea. No, it isn’t, because it commits you to the sizes you thought of up front. If you guessed wrong then you have a painful reorganization job to do. Hence the suggestion to use LVM. In practice the problems I’ve run into in real life have been that a particular filesystem was too small for its allotted purpose, rather than the space-usage crosstalk problems between logically separate concerns that you describe. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 12:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jejl1d-njf.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3086 |
On 2016-05-27 09:36, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> writes: >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. >> >> IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good >> idea. > > No, it isn’t, because it commits you to the sizes you thought of up > front. If you guessed wrong then you have a painful reorganization job > to do. Hence the suggestion to use LVM. Yes, you have to commit to sizes, true. But it is more solid and reliable than LVM. And with the huge disk sizes of today, you can dedicate 10 or 20 gigs to most of those /small/ partitions and not notice. But there are other reasons to have a large number of partitions, and the OP hasn't said which one it may be. For instance, he may be using several operating systems in the same hard disk. And anyway, not related to his problem, which probably is that the kernel has not reread or accepted the new partition table yet, as Henrik said. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nia4se$ibh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3086 |
On Fri, 27 May 2016 08:36:29 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> writes: >> IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good idea. > > No, it isn’t, because it commits you to the sizes you thought of up > front. If you guessed wrong then you have a painful reorganization job > to do. Hence the suggestion to use LVM. LVM might be a good suggestion for some, but I still prefer separate partitions. If you grow out of one of your partitions it is usually rather easy to add yet another partition to some sub-directory. E g if you grow out of space on /usr you could add another partition to /usr/local. In a worst case scenario if you don't want to add another mount point you could copy the entire contents from a smaller old partition to a newer bigger partition and then swap their mount points. In my expereince, with newer kernels it is even possible to successfully run partprobe even when some partitions are mounted. That way you can grow to a bigger file system without having to reboot. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware
csiph-web