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

error in fdisk/cfdisk? (part 2)



Hi! Thanks for your help!

  Bob> What is your current status?  Is anything already installed on

Bob> this disk?  If not, all partitions should be removed and recreated.

Not really, I can delete everything on the disk again.

  Bob> If some things are installed that need to be saved, it would be

Bob> advisable to back them up, and start over.  If you want to try to

Bob> repair this instead of replacing it, please send me a copy of the

Bob> partition tables from fdisk (including the disk geometry data that

Bob> fdisk prints at the top of the partition table) _and_ from DOS fdisk,

 Bob> noting which partitions have files installed on them.

Here's a little more detail:

At startup the BIOS recognizes the size of the first drive on the primary
controller correctly (519 MB), the second drive is a CD-ROM, and the first
drive on the second primary controller is another hard-disk, the one with
the 4-fold partition. BIOS does NOT recognizes the size correctly. It says
82 MB, really it is 4.3 GB ! It has 14848 Cylinders, 9 heads, 63 sectors.

I already did as you suggested and cleared the partition table, rewrote it,
but the effect was the same.
DOS FDISK doesn't even recognize the size of the whole disk (4.3 GB) it
says 283 MB !

DOS FDISK gets confused about the CDROM and the 4th partition. Its output is:
Partition   Status  Type    Name   MB System Percentage
   1                Non-DOS        64          23%   # used (Linux swap)
   2           A    Non-DOS      1200         100%   # used (Linux native)
D: 3                Pri-DOS Chip 2000  CD01   100%   # empty
E: 4                Pri-DOS Test  847 FAT16   100%   # empty

You see, it recognizes the sizes of the partitions correctly, but it thinks
the CDROM is the third partition and gets confused about the drive letters
D: and E: !

Here's more info:
BIOS:
=====
User   Size             Precomp     LANDZ   SECTORS   MODE
        82  14848    9   65535      14847     63      NORMAL
        82    524  255       0      14847     63      LBA
        82   7424   18   65535      14847     63      LARGE


I'm running LILO. Maybe DOS FDISK is confused because Lilo rewrote the MBR ?

Here's what cfdisk prints:
            ======
#  Type     1st Sec  LastSec Offset Length  Filysystem Type        Flags
1  Primary        0   130976  63   130977   Linux Swap      (82)   None (00)
2  Primary   130977  2588354   0  2457378   Linux (83)             Boot (80)
3  Primary  2588355  6684362   0  4096008   DOS FAT 16 (big) (06)  None (00)
4  Primary  6684363  8418815   0  1734453   DOS FAT 16 (big) (06)  None (00)

Here's what fdisk prints:
            =====
           Boot  Begin      Start      End   Blocks  Id  System
/dev/hdc1             63       63   130976    65457  82  Linux Swap
/dev/hdc2   *     130977   130977  2588354  1228689  83  Linux native
/dev/hdc3        2322431  2588355  6684362  2048004   6  DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hdc4        6386687  6684363  8418815  867226+   6  DOS 16-bit >=32M

There's the errors (I guess): 2588355 - 2322431 = 265924
                              6684363 - 6386687 = 297676

(v)erify gives:
Warning: partition 2 overlays partition 3.
         partition 3 overlays partition 4.
         60 unallocated sectors.

(x)perts, then (u) and (p)rint gives:
Nr  AF  Hd  Sec  Cyl  Hd  Sec  Cyl  Start   Size    ID
 1  00   1   1    0    8   63  230    63    130914  82
 2  80   0   1    231  8   63  1023  130977  2457378  83
 3  00   8  63   1023  8   63  1023 2588355  4096008  06
 4  00   8  63   1023  8   63  1023  6684363  1734453  06



Many many thanks for your help ! Helmut



   -----------------------------------------------------------
   Accept the challenge!   http://fbma.tuwien.ac.at/~e8426331/
   ... and write to me !
   -----------------------------------------------------------


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: