[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs? |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:12:14 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 06:50:26PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> In any case, parted can't handle my 80GB Mator IDE HD and kernel/fdisk
> work just fine. If you have any patches, I can give them a try. I will
> keep my patch if no solution is found soon.
Ah, I had a look at the bug report.
How/when did parted create that partition table? Was it during
a Red Hat install?
I suspect that kernel thought the disk was 155114/16/63, and aligned
the partitions accordingly. Parted is seeing that now.
What do you mean by "can't handle", BTW? "Ignore" should work fine.
Cheers,
Andrew
- Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/26
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Pixel, 2002/08/27
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?,
Andrew Clausen <=
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/29
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/29
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/30