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


Groups > linux.debian.user > #266011

Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion

From Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion
Date 2024-01-15 22:30 +0100
Message-ID <HWCGS-3kRh-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <HW3J7-2ZIb-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <HWmVr-3b5K-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <HWnRw-3bI8-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 4:58 AM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:32:37PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > What happens if you use diskimages that contain directly a filesystem
> > without going through the trouble of using a partition table?
> > Does `ext4` also get tripped by the different underlying block size?
>
> I believe it will also fail but I haven't directly experimented.
>
> On the target host I was able to use fdisk (or gdisk or parted or
> whatever…) to change the partition table to be "correct", which
> enabled me to then use "kpartx" to expose the partition out of the
> disk image as a loop device as usual. However, the ext4 driver and
> fsck.ext4 were still unable to find superblocks on this. This
> despite a sha256sum of the loop device coming back with the same
> hash as a sha256sum of the partition on the source.
>

In your dd commands that moved these filesystems, did you specify ibs=
and/or obs=
?
If so, what values did you use?
....

> Thanks,
> Andy
>

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


Thread

512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-14 09:10 +0100
  Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-14 09:20 +0100
    Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 12:30 +0100
    Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-01-14 12:40 +0100
  Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2024-01-14 14:30 +0100
    Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-14 17:20 +0100
      Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2024-01-14 18:00 +0100
  Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 19:20 +0100
  Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-01-15 05:40 +0100
    Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-15 06:40 +0100
      Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-01-15 22:30 +0100
      Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 22:30 +0100
        Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-16 01:40 +0100
        Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2024-01-16 17:40 +0100
      Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-17 08:30 +0100
  Re: 512e vs 4K sector confusion Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-01-20 22:30 +0100

csiph-web