Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #226878
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| 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 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ANE1c-4Ez-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <AMSzg-8r6-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <AMTEZ-Cd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <AN9Tr-2iA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANjzs-81C-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANnWq-2oc-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2020-09-09 23:02, David wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 11:26, David Christensen
> <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-09-09 08:03, David Wright wrote:
>
>>> ... having been bitten by
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=923561
>
>> I have a 300 GB drive that has been causing me some confusion. Did I
>> elicity the bug when I partitioned the disk as follows?
>
> I have not read all relevant messages, but in case it helps you can
> check your exact device partition boundaries by running:
>
> parted /dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST3300622AS_******** 'unit compact print
> free unit s print free unit b print free'
That parted(8) incantation has issues, as does the disk:
2020-09-10 14:00:52 root@tinkywinky ~
# parted /dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST3300622AS_******** 'unit compact print
free unit s print free unit b print free'
Error: The backup GPT table is corrupt, but the primary appears OK, so
that will be used.
parted: invalid token: unit
OK/Cancel? ok
Model: ATA ST3300622AS (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 300GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: gpt
Disk Flags:
Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
17.4kB 1049kB 1031kB Free Space
1 1049kB 300GB 300GB ext2 ********
300GB 300GB 139kB Free Space
This is how I invoke parted(8):
2020-09-10 14:01:58 root@tinkywinky ~
# parted /dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST3300622AS_******** unit s print free
Error: The backup GPT table is corrupt, but the primary appears OK, so
that will be used.
OK/Cancel? ok
Model: ATA ST3300622AS (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 586072368s
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: gpt
Disk Flags:
Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
34s 2047s 2014s Free Space
1 2048s 586072063s 586070016s ext2 ********
586072064s 586072334s 271s Free Space
Looking at the above information, my first partition starts at sector
2048 and ends at sector 586072063 (inclusive). Both of these values
represent 1 MiB alignment, so it appears that the partition has not been
affected by bug 923561.
David
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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