Re: Bug?

[Andrew Clausen]

Klaus Maisinger wrote:
> Thinking about it, I'm not so sure anymore if I ever resized hda1
> with parted, even though I definitely used it on hda4, hda5 and hda8. (And
> I actually ran a disk defragmenter and not a fragmenter. ;-) )

I'm not sure which is better for performance :p

> I also ran Win95's scandisk on hda1 and gathered the following
> information:
> 
>            32-bit filesystem
> 1,677,656,064 bytes total disk space
>        32,768 bytes in each allocation unit
>        51,198 total allocation units on disk
> 
> The last number doesn't quite match the number of clusters reported by
> parted, but I don't know if that is relevant.

If you have 51198 clusters, then you only need 200 sectors of FAT.
So, this is probably a M$ work-around.  I'm too paranoid to put this
in Parted, because other versions might do different (incompatible)
work arounds, or something...  But, it's good to know... maybe
we'll understand this better in future...

(If you're thinking "it can't be THAT bad", look in
libparted/fs_fat/calc., near where it says DO NOT CHANGE THIS ALGORITHM)

Also: it says it's a "32 bit" file system.  I have no idea what that
means... but it's FAT16.

> PS: What's the difference between parted 1.2 and 1.4? Does this follow the
> Linux kernels?

It uses the Linux versioning scheme, but 1.2 and 1.4 should both run
on linux >= 2.0, although I haven't tried anything other than 2.2 for
a while!

1.4 introduced a nicer internal API for disk labels, which means we
now support Mac, PC98 and BSD.

Thanks,
Andrew Clausen