Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?)

[Andrew Clausen]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:39:22PM +0100, Wlodek Drabent wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Thanks for your answer.
> Unfortunately, the disk is now in use and I cannot play with it anymore.
> And I do not have sufficiently systematic notes...
> 
> >  > (Also, parted was able to create overlapping partitions.
> >  REALLY?!
> Maybe not exactly.
> BUT fdisk said:
>    Partition 6: previous sectors 3330493 disagrees with total 3338240
> 
> [I found fdisk/cfdisk listings of this situation, enclosed below.]

Thanks, I had a look, and it looks like fdisk/cfdisk brokenness.

Parted will only do this if it can't figure out the disk geometry...
did it give you a warning about this?  (BTW: all partitioning
programs do something like this)

> "A professional partitioning program" gave:
>    sector 3330494 error 114
>    EPBR not at the beginning of cylinder
> and moved it to 3330432, running into error 108 (unexplained).

Sounds right.

> It would be safer to do it always. (The numbers of MB seems almost
> always adjusted by parted.  Typos are possible, especially in
> partition numbers, or using command abbreviations, etc.)

I can't think of an example where a typo would do something BAD.
Can you?

Andrew