SOLVED: Re: fdisk and fujitsu drives
Got this figured out, sort of. I don't know why, but fdisk seems to
act differently for the fujitsu drives as compared to Western Digital,
Samsung, Seagate and O'Connor drives I have or have had. I always just
accepted defaults for the first cylinder when creating new partitions. Had
to explicitly type them out when partitioning the fujitsu.
Don't yet have the final word on it working but I am optimistic as
there were no warning about bad data starts and partitions not ending on
boundaries.
Ta.
On Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 09:27:44PM -0700, G. Crimp wrote:
> I've got a 6.4 GB fujitsu drive that I am trying partition.
> Actually, I had it partitioned, formatted (no reported errors), and file
> system from an old disk transferred to it. However, I made it the master
> after the fs transfer, and was using a rescue floppy to boot, mount all the
> partitions and set up LILO, but LILO setup failed with:
>
> Device 0X0300: Invalid partition table, 3rd entry
> 3D address: 1/0/78 (73710)
> linear address: 55/11/21 (20592)
>
> fdisk reported the first four partitions not ending on cylinder boundaries.
> Also, the beginning, starting and ending cylinders are all wonky. Eg.,
> begin start end type size
> part 1 1 1 11 native 5M
> part 2 40 11 22 native 5M
> part 3 79 22 239 native 100M
> part 4 855 239 2859 extendd rest of disk
> part 5 855 239 889 native 300M
> part 6 1024 889 1539 native 300M
> part 7 1024 1539 2189 native 300M
> part 8 2024 2189 2623 native 200M
>
> So, v (verify) gives all kinds of errors (end of cylinders not on
> boundaries, bad start of data, partitions overlapping). I deleted all the
> partitions and started over which fixed up the beginning cylinders on parts
> 1-4 but not the rest. ( I didn't write the partition table so I still have
> the old setup)
>
> QUESTIONS:
> 1) Does this matter ? (apparently it does to LILO) I was able to mke2fs -c
> all partitions no problem, and copy over the old file system.
>
> and if it does matter,
>
> 2a) Anyone know what is causing this ?
> 2b) " " " I can do to fix it ?
>
> I suspect this might be a logical/physical geometry thing. Linux required
> me to explicitly state the physical geometry of a 1.2 Gig Seagate (now a
> paper weight) before it would install on it. However, I have a Western
> Digital 3.1 Gig in another box that Linux happily installed on without the
> physical parameters.
>
> All help appreciated. Thanks,
>
> Gerald
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
Reply to: