Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #266011
| 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 |
[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
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