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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #164165 > unrolled thread

changing partition names

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-14 21:50 +0100
    Re: changing partition names rlharris@oplink.net - 2016-02-14 23:10 +0100
      Re: changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-15 01:20 +0100
        Re: changing partition names Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-02-15 03:00 +0100
          Re: changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-15 04:40 +0100
            Re: changing partition names Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-02-16 07:50 +0100
    Re: changing partition names Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-02-15 02:00 +0100
      Re: changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-15 04:50 +0100
    Re: changing partition names Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-02-15 11:50 +0100
      Re: changing partition names <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-02-15 12:50 +0100
      Re: changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-15 18:00 +0100
        Re: changing partition names jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-02-15 18:50 +0100
          Re: changing partition names Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-02-15 21:00 +0100
            Re: changing partition names Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-02-15 21:10 +0100
              Re: changing partition names Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-02-15 21:20 +0100
    Re: changing partition names Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-02-15 21:10 +0100
      Re: changing partition names Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 00:20 +0100
        Re: changing partition names Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-02-16 00:40 +0100
          Re: changing partition names Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-02-16 01:30 +0100
            Re: changing partition names Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-02-16 04:40 +0100
          Re: changing partition names jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-02-16 08:50 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#164165 — changing partition names

I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.
As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows) 
and sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.

Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to
read the file and create a properly named partition record ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#164167

On Sun, February 14, 2016 2:42 pm, Frank McCormick wrote:
> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to read
> the file and create a properly named partition record ?

To rename partitions, I use gnome-disk-utility.  For some operations I use
GParted.  I tend to get into trouble when using fdisk or fsdisk.

Russ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164170

On 14/02/16 05:00 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Sun, February 14, 2016 2:42 pm, Frank McCormick wrote:
>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
>> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to read
>> the file and create a properly named partition record ?
>
> To rename partitions, I use gnome-disk-utility.  For some operations I use
> GParted.  I tend to get into trouble when using fdisk or fsdisk.
>
> Russ
>


   Unfortunately neither of those can do what I need.
This is what I have now from sfdisk -l

label: dos
label-id: 0x5a74aac4
device: /dev/sda
unit: sectors

/dev/sda1 : start=        2048, size=      194560, type=7
/dev/sda2 : start=      196608, size=    81920000, type=7
/dev/sda4 : start=    82116608, size=    74131456, type=83, bootable

  ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3

sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164175

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:11:37 -0500
Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On 14/02/16 05:00 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>> On Sun, February 14, 2016 2:42 pm, Frank McCormick wrote:  
>>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
>>> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to read
>>> the file and create a properly named partition record ?  
>>
>> To rename partitions, I use gnome-disk-utility.  For some operations I use
>> GParted.  I tend to get into trouble when using fdisk or fsdisk.
>>
>> Russ
>>  
>
>
>   Unfortunately neither of those can do what I need.
>This is what I have now from sfdisk -l
>
>label: dos
>label-id: 0x5a74aac4
>device: /dev/sda
>unit: sectors
>
>/dev/sda1 : start=        2048, size=      194560, type=7
>/dev/sda2 : start=      196608, size=    81920000, type=7
>/dev/sda4 : start=    82116608, size=    74131456, type=83, bootable
>
>  ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3
>
>sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian
>

Debian should not care if a partition number is missing. It should
still work. The only way I know to renumber a partition is to delete
the ones after the missing number. Then you can create new partitions,
starting at the empty space. 

- -- 
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWwSI2AAoJEIqui46mydCA6M0H/RbPLlZJSS51sjSnjMXUpxMT
8QREy3gSthznuXtgQlDsRgBIhVWOF6ZNoA1yDnZmlf4KP1EnY5JJweVbNeJ2XaSn
so4Nir7H0xkZTgv5QfFGeXnTURK9nuejt9eHUZj1x5wnv7FfoJATiJUbAP4dSiUB
QAaxxsblzR6BLCAqgT98PV4Ny4DxsKpthNNwqNteIHWLoTdMO4nic5iHW3WKS074
BpoQzY6hzwu27TgnjUe7sns/t4tsgDJIyv1d15Zu5oTo9O7pgK+9pqYiEe0HzdNr
OQq9hXzMdxRNvlypi8Onq0+RQl/utJIwA8BwUGnupjitYPg9HnOrTlDGKdlniWE=
=Sbgu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164179

On 14/02/16 07:56 PM, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:11:37 -0500
> Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/16 05:00 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, February 14, 2016 2:42 pm, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
>>>> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to read
>>>> the file and create a properly named partition record ?
>>>
>>> To rename partitions, I use gnome-disk-utility.  For some operations I use
>>> GParted.  I tend to get into trouble when using fdisk or fsdisk.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>
>>
>>    Unfortunately neither of those can do what I need.
>> This is what I have now from sfdisk -l
>>
>> label: dos
>> label-id: 0x5a74aac4
>> device: /dev/sda
>> unit: sectors
>>
>> /dev/sda1 : start=        2048, size=      194560, type=7
>> /dev/sda2 : start=      196608, size=    81920000, type=7
>> /dev/sda4 : start=    82116608, size=    74131456, type=83, bootable
>>
>>   ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3
>>
>> sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian
>>
>
> Debian should not care if a partition number is missing. It should
> still work. The only way I know to renumber a partition is to delete
> the ones after the missing number. Then you can create new partitions,
> starting at the empty space.
>
> - --

   Yes it does work...but it just seems weird to me :) Maybe it's my OCD
kicking in but they should be sda1 sda2 sda3 :)

I don't thinkI want to get involved with backing up creating new one 
then restoring to solve what seems like a simple problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164219

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:33:23 -0500 Frank McCormick
<debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:

> On 14/02/16 07:56 PM, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:11:37 -0500
> > Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/02/16 05:00 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> >>> On Sun, February 14, 2016 2:42 pm, Frank McCormick wrote:
> >>>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition
> >>>> record edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk
> >>>> or sfdisk to read the file and create a properly named partition
> >>>> record ?
> >>>
> >>> To rename partitions, I use gnome-disk-utility.  For some
> >>> operations I use GParted.  I tend to get into trouble when using
> >>> fdisk or fsdisk.
> >>>
> >>> Russ
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>    Unfortunately neither of those can do what I need.
> >> This is what I have now from sfdisk -l
> >>
> >> label: dos
> >> label-id: 0x5a74aac4
> >> device: /dev/sda
> >> unit: sectors
> >>
> >> /dev/sda1 : start=        2048, size=      194560, type=7
> >> /dev/sda2 : start=      196608, size=    81920000, type=7
> >> /dev/sda4 : start=    82116608, size=    74131456, type=83,
> >> bootable
> >>
> >>   ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3
> >>
> >> sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian
> >>
> >
> > Debian should not care if a partition number is missing. It should
> > still work. The only way I know to renumber a partition is to delete
> > the ones after the missing number. Then you can create new
> > partitions, starting at the empty space.
> >
> > - --
> 
>    Yes it does work...but it just seems weird to me :) Maybe it's my
> OCD kicking in but they should be sda1 sda2 sda3 :)

This is literally just OCD. There is nothing wrong with having
sda1/sda2/sda4 as opposed to sda1/sda2/sda3 (though I admit the latter
is more aesthetically pleasing), just as sda1/sda5/sda9 is equally
valid.

Just fight your OCD. Debian will survive having uneven partition
numbering, and will continue to work tickety-boo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164173

Frank McCormick composed on 2016-02-14 15:42 (UTC-0500):

> I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.

What motivated doing so? What exactly was/were your goal(s) in doing so?

> As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows) 
> and sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.

> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record

It's not something I've ever done, but as I understand them, using either to
delete and recreate an existing partition should do that job, but compatibly
only if you know how to recreate the same size and have it start on the same
sector as it now does.

> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to
> read the file and create a properly named partition record ?

Any binary disk editor can move the slot 4 partition record to slot 3. That's
the only difference between your existing native partition being named sda4
and being named sda3. Do you understand the ramifications of making such a
change? As long as your existing Debian partition is referred to by name,
UUID or ID in bootloader config and fstab, it shouldn't matter the device
name resulting from its partition table entry.

Frank McCormick composed on 2016-02-14 19:11 (UTC-0500):

> This is what I have now from sfdisk -l

> label: dos
> label-id: 0x5a74aac4
> device: /dev/sda
> unit: sectors

> /dev/sda1 : start= 2048, size= 194560, type=7
> /dev/sda2 : start= 196608, size= 81920000, type=7
> /dev/sda4 : start= 82116608, size= 74131456, type=83, bootable

> ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3

Why the "need".

> sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian

As the size recovered by your deletion of sda3 was minimal
(82116608-81920000=196608), you're probably best off, in terms of
complication, by creating another partition in its space. Once created, make
a new filesystem, and maybe mount it as /usr/local, /var/cache, /tmp or even
/boot (assuming you know and can deal with the bootloader complications
involved in doing so).
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164180

On 14/02/16 07:49 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Frank McCormick composed on 2016-02-14 15:42 (UTC-0500):
>
>> I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.
>
>What motivated doing so? What exactly was/were your goal(s) in doing so?

To put the 15 gigs of space to better use :)


>
>> As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows)
>> and sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.
>
>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
>
> It's not something I've ever done, but as I understand them, using either to
> delete and recreate an existing partition should do that job, but compatibly
> only if you know how to recreate the same size and have it start on the same
> sector as it now does.

Googling the problem turns up several people who **claim** all that has 
to be done is to dump the existing partition record to a text file using
sfdisk...changing the 4 to a 3...then telling sfdisk to recreate the 
partition by feeding it the modified text file. However you note I said 
**claim**.

>
> Frank McCormick composed on 2016-02-14 19:11 (UTC-0500):
>
>> This is what I have now from sfdisk -l
>
>> label: dos
>> label-id: 0x5a74aac4
>> device: /dev/sda
>> unit: sectors
>
>> /dev/sda1 : start= 2048, size= 194560, type=7
>> /dev/sda2 : start= 196608, size= 81920000, type=7
>> /dev/sda4 : start= 82116608, size= 74131456, type=83, bootable
>
>> ^^^^^^^^ this is what I need to change to /dev/sda3
>

>
>> sda1 and sda2 are the Windows partitions. sda4 is Debian
>
> As the size recovered by your deletion of sda3 was minimal
> (82116608-81920000=196608), you're probably best off, in terms of
> complication, by creating another partition in its space. Once created, make
> a new filesystem, and maybe mount it as /usr/local, /var/cache, /tmp or even
> /boot (assuming you know and can deal with the bootloader complications
> involved in doing so).
>
    No, I reclaimed 15 GIGS of space. Gparted first moved the Debian 
partition ( it was at the end of the disk, than created a new file 
system in the recovered space, which was added to the Debian partition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164186

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:42:33PM -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.
> As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows) and
> sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.
> 
> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to
> read the file and create a properly named partition record ?

If it's the names you are concerned about, then I would recommend not
referencing partition numbers or device names directly if at all possible (e.g.
sda3 or sdb). Instead label your filesystems (e2label /dev/sda3 MY_LABEL) and
refer to the labels (/dev/disk/by-label/MY_LABEL) or use UUIDs. These are more
robust against partition changes or disk renumberings.

If you want the space back, well, you can try to do some partition surgery but
make sure you've got good backups first. For fresh setups I'd always recommend
using LVM. If you were already using LVM, you could just reformat the unwanted
partition as an LVM PV, add it to your VG and the space could be re-used,
without having to muck with the partition table at all.

If you are mucking about with the partition tables, bear in mind that the table
itself is like a bunch of pointers; so if you dump the table, edit it and
re-load it, no data itself will have moved: so if the new table points at
different places, you will have lost your filesystems. If you want sda4 to begin
where sda3 used to be, you need to move the filesystem as well as rewrite the
partition table. This is probably something that (g)parted (or partition magic)
can do, but here be dragons, etc.

If the now-spare sda3 was large enough, and you were not already using LVM, I'd
recommend formatting sda3 as an LVM PV and create a new LVM VG, then an LVM LV;
then migrate your data from sda4 into that LV; then format sda4 as an LVM PV and
add that into the VG, so you end up with all the space being available, again
without changing the partition table at all.

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164190

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:49:29AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

[...]

> If the now-spare sda3 was large enough, and you were not already using LVM, I'd
> recommend formatting sda3 as an LVM PV and create a new LVM VG, then an LVM LV;
> then migrate your data from sda4 into that LV; then format sda4 as an LVM PV and
> add that into the VG, so you end up with all the space being available, again
> without changing the partition table at all.

Very insightful. In the interest of newbies (I was that in things
LVM a short while ago) I'll add a bit of explanation for those
mysterious acronyms:

The logical volume manager (LVM) concerns itself with collecting
slices of space from disk (PVs == "physical volumes") into bigger
units (VGs == "volume groups") to then dole out slices of it
("LVs" == "logical volumes") which then can be used as normal
partitions, although their backing store may be scattered across
several partitions (possibly on several "disks"[1])

This can be extremely useful: for example I have encrypted disks
on my laptop (in case it gets lost I can sleep well, because all
those nasty company secrets are not readable to anyone). But still
I have several partitions (/, home, /var, and most prominently,
swap, which I want encrypted as well. Now the LUKS disk encryption
is per "partition" -- at each boot I'd have to enter the LUKS
pass phrase for each of those partitions. Ugh.

No problem with the LVM -- I make one big (physical) partition,
encrypt that with LUKS, give that to the LVM as a physical
volume (PV), the only one in the volume group (VG) and section
that into the logical volumes (LVs) where my different file
systems will reside.

The other day my /var partition was too small. I had spare space
in /home. Using a bit of care (first shrink the file system on
/home) I could transfer as much space as needed to /var.

I think the Wikipedia article[2] is a nice writeup to get started.

[1] I'm using scare quotes there because a disk may denote an SSD, an USB
    stick or whatever physical storage medium out there.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Volume_Manager_(Linux)

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlbBsXUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbtWwCfenbGEfSrMbh214gE/PPjA7/Y
h/UAnA/+DGz+rzH2YnYx7zrasOEzBLEs
=yNrK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164193

On 15/02/16 05:49 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:42:33PM -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
>> I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.
>> As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows) and
>> sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.
>>
>> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
>> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to
>> read the file and create a properly named partition record ?
>
> If it's the names you are concerned about, then I would recommend not
> referencing partition numbers or device names directly if at all possible (e.g.
> sda3 or sdb). Instead label your filesystems (e2label /dev/sda3 MY_LABEL) and
> refer to the labels (/dev/disk/by-label/MY_LABEL) or use UUIDs. These are more
> robust against partition changes or disk renumberings.
>

   I already use UUIDS.

> If you want the space back, well, you can try to do some partition surgery but
> make sure you've got good backups first. For fresh setups I'd always recommend
> using LVM. If you were already using LVM, you could just reformat the unwanted
> partition as an LVM PV, add it to your VG and the space could be re-used,
> without having to muck with the partition table at all.
>

   I have the space back already. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly 
enough but I used Gparted to delete the partition and to enlarge the 
Debian partition. That's how I ended up with these mis-named 
partition...i.e. sda1 sda2 sda4.

> If you are mucking about with the partition tables, bear in mind that the table
> itself is like a bunch of pointers; so if you dump the table, edit it and
> re-load it, no data itself will have moved: so if the new table points at
> different places, you will have lost your filesystems. If you want sda4 to begin
> where sda3 used to be, you need to move the filesystem as well as rewrite the
> partition table.

   If I don't touch the beginning or ending of the partitions there 
should be no problem, right ?


This is probably something that (g)parted (or partition magic)
> can do, but here be dragons, etc.

   No neither can handle what I need...but apparently sfdisk can.

>
> If the now-spare sda3 was large enough, and you were not already using LVM, I'd
> recommend formatting sda3 as an LVM PV and create a new LVM VG, then an LVM LV;
> then migrate your data from sda4 into that LV; then format sda4 as an LVM PV and
> add that into the VG, so you end up with all the space being available, again
> without changing the partition table at all.
>

   Too late for LVM. Next time I reinstall from scratch, I'll take a 
look at it as it seems to make life more simple.



Thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164195

Le 15/02/2016 17:51, Frank McCormick a écrit :

>    I already use UUIDS.

be warned, if you use the partition table edit solution, uuid changes 
each time you touch a partition. The better way may be to use labels, 
but I don't know if they survive partition change, probably not.

>    No neither can handle what I need...but apparently sfdisk can.

pretty easy to do by hand, but booting may begin hard

O wrote this mong time ago :-)

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Partition-Rescue/

> look at it as it seems to make life more simple.

may be usefull, but more simple certainly not, let only for the dev 
names :-)

jdd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164197

jdd a écrit :
> 
> be warned, if you use the partition table edit solution, uuid changes 
> each time you touch a partition.

No, UUID don't change unless you change the contents of a partition.
They are not in the partition table. Same with labels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164198

Pascal Hambourg composed on 2016-02-15 20:52 (UTC+0100):

>> be warned, if you use the partition table edit solution, uuid changes 
>> each time you touch a partition.

> No, UUID don't change unless you change the contents of a partition.
> They are not in the partition table. Same with labels.

Filesystem UUID won't change, but partition UUID will change:

# blkid /dev/sda10
/dev/sda10: UUID="c37e5de4-f454-e44b-afe2-6e50d920a464"
UUID_SUB="2d50ad8e-5131-2f5a-3bfc-ae071dda4314" LABEL="srv10:mdroot2"
TYPE="linux_raid_member" PARTUUID="c22068fb-0a"
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164200

Felix Miata a écrit :
> Pascal Hambourg composed on 2016-02-15 20:52 (UTC+0100):
> 
>>> be warned, if you use the partition table edit solution, uuid changes 
>>> each time you touch a partition.
> 
>> No, UUID don't change unless you change the contents of a partition.
>> They are not in the partition table. Same with labels.
> 
> Filesystem UUID won't change, but partition UUID will change:
> 
> # blkid /dev/sda10
> /dev/sda10: UUID="c37e5de4-f454-e44b-afe2-6e50d920a464"
> UUID_SUB="2d50ad8e-5131-2f5a-3bfc-ae071dda4314" LABEL="srv10:mdroot2"
> TYPE="linux_raid_member" PARTUUID="c22068fb-0a"

This is a fake PARTUUID, built by recent kernels and based on the
partition number with MSDOS partition tables. A real PARTUUID in a GPT
partition table would not change.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164199

Frank McCormick a écrit :
> I have deleted a partition from my HD containing a distro I no longer use.
> As a result, my partitions on /dev/sda are numbered sda1. sda2 (windows) 
> and sda4. sda3 contained the distro I dumped.
> 
> Can I just use fdisk or fsdisk to dump the existing partition record
> edit the file to change sda4 to sda3 and then use fdisk or sfdisk to
> read the file and create a properly named partition record ?

The partition is already properly named. There is nothing wrong in
having unused partition entries between used partition entries. The
partition table is just that : a table.

Why would you want to renumber the partition ? It provides absolutely no
benefit and can break things such as the bootloader which may seek data
on partitions identified by their numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164203

On Monday 15 February 2016 20:05:53 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Why would you want to renumber the partition ? It provides absolutely no
> benefit and can break things such as the bootloader which may seek data
> on partitions identified by their numbers.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it??? ;-)

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164205

Lisi Reisz composed on 2016-02-15 23:16 (UTC):

> Pascal Hambourg wrote:

>> Why would you want to renumber the partition ? It provides absolutely no
>> benefit and can break things such as the bootloader which may seek data
>> on partitions identified by their numbers.

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it??? ;-)

IMO it broke when sda3 got deleted, but is easily fixed by putting any
partition into any part of the current freespace.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164207

On 15/02/16 06:32 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Lisi Reisz composed on 2016-02-15 23:16 (UTC):
>
>> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
>>> Why would you want to renumber the partition ? It provides absolutely no
>>> benefit and can break things such as the bootloader which may seek data
>>> on partitions identified by their numbers.
>
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it??? ;-)
>
> IMO it broke when sda3 got deleted, but is easily fixed by putting any
> partition into any part of the current freespace.
>

    There is NO free space. It's now part of the Debian partition, the 
rest belongs to Bill gates creation :)

I am beginning to agree...if it ain't broke.....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164210

Frank McCormick composed on 2016-02-15 19:26 (UTC-0500):

> On 15/02/16 06:32 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

>> Lisi Reisz composed on 2016-02-15 23:16 (UTC):

>>> Pascal Hambourg wrote:

>>>> Why would you want to renumber the partition ? It provides absolutely no
>>>> benefit and can break things such as the bootloader which may seek data
>>>> on partitions identified by their numbers.

>>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it??? ;-)

>> IMO it broke when sda3 got deleted, but is easily fixed by putting any
>> partition into any part of the current freespace.

>     There is NO free space. It's now part of the Debian partition, the 
> rest belongs to Bill gates creation :)

> I am beginning to agree...if it ain't broke.....

OK, so I misread your fdisk output. There is no freespace. Still I think the
missing #3 partition table entry amounts to a lurking booby trap waiting to
pounce after history has been forgotten.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web