[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fdisk message error



Thank you Tom for your answer. (Also to Hakan for his one, I
subscribe his question about the 'r'-Flag meaning).

Maybe I didn't understand well how I have to proceed. In fact
starting from the situation:

--------------------------------------------------------------
   Device Flag    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   r         0      8322   4194288   83  Linux native
/dev/hda2          8322      8842    262080   82  Linux swap
--------------------------------------------------------------

I created a /dev/hda4 partition as Linux native. But I received
the same error message when I wrote it to the partition table and
when I reboot the new partition disappears.

Have I to create a /dev/hda3 from 0 to 16706 before? If yes how is
this possible? I cannot put 0 as "First cylinder" (Value out of
range). I can only put value equal or greater to 8842 as "First
cylinder".

Thank you also to Hakan for his reply 

Roberto Giorgetti


On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:27:37AM -0700 or thereabouts, Thomas Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-09-11 at 13:12, Roberto Giorgetti wrote:
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >    Device Flag    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
> > /dev/hda1   r         0      8322   4194288   83  Linux native
> > /dev/hda2          8322      8842    262080   82  Linux swap
> > /dev/hda3          8842     16706   3963456    5  Whole disk
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > N.B. I followed the reccomendation to set the type of the third 
> > disk to 'Whole disk'.
> > Then I run w command to write onto the partition table and I
> > receive: 
> 
> The whole point of having the third partition being the "Whole Disk" is
> that it should be the whole disk.  Make it go from 0 to 16706.  Don't
> mount this partition.
> 
> Then create a /dev/hda4 with the rest of the space > 8842 and use that
> to mount and put data on.
> 
> -tom duffy



Reply to: