Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226900

Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...

From David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...
Date 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
Message-ID <ANSdQ-4IC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <ANjzs-81C-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANnWq-2oc-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANxVM-TL-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANDot-4cm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANHBM-6RJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri 11 Sep 2020 at 13:03:44 (+1000), David wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 08:30, David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> > On 2020-09-10 09:44, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > > I don't like parted particularly, and don't know what "free" does.
> > > Can you elucidate?
> 
> > > $ man parted | grep -i free
> > > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes parted | grep -i free
> 
> > I also am unable to find canonical documentation via RTFM, info, and
> > STFW.  GNU must have missed documenting it (?).
> 
> # parted --help | grep -A 1 free
>   print [devices|free|list,all|NUMBER]     display the partition table,
>         available devices, free space, all found partitions, or a particular
>         partition

It looks as if that just got left out of the man page
which, in other respects, has been condensed to yield
$ /sbin/parted --help

Cheers,
David.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
    Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-08 22:40 +0200
      Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 23:50 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-09 00:50 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 17:10 +0200
          Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-10 03:30 +0200
            Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 08:10 +0200
              Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 18:50 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 00:40 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:10 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 06:20 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
              Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 01:20 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:50 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 22:10 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 17:20 +0200
          Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 18:30 +0200
            Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 19:10 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-09-08 23:10 +0200

csiph-web