Re: partition does not end on cylinder boundary error.
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 17:37, Sebastiaan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 Feb 2002, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 15:34, Sebastiaan wrote:
> >
> > > But still I do not see the problem. You have one harddisk on which win98,
> > > winNT and Linux is installed. Are win98 and NT on the same partition or on
> > > a different one? Which was first installed? Is your win98 partition really
> > > lost or have you just no access to it? We really need more information
> > > about your harddisk partitionning and windoze installation history to help
> > > you.
> >
> > Win98 is partition one. Linux is part two and NT was supposed to be
> > partition three. On trying to install - it screwed the partition table
> > up. Therefore, NT is not installed just now.
> >
> > I think the data is fine in Partition one - its just inaccessible
> > because the partition info is incorrect. I really need some program that
> > can "fix" this partition table entry.
> >
> How do you try to access it? Under Linux it should be no problem. And
> because it is the first partition, it should basically start at cylinder
> 1. When mounting, it does not care where it ends, it just looks at the
> start.
>
> To verify, try:
> less -f /dev/sda1 (where sda1 is your windoze partition)
> If it displays something like:
> <EB>X<90>MSWIN4.1^@^
>
> <two lines blabla>
>
> WORK FAT32 <FA>3<C9><8E><
>
> <more blabla and then something like:>
>
> @u^AB^C^^KIu<B4><C3>^C^X^A'
> Ongeldige diskette <FF>
> I/O-fout <FF>
> Vervang de diskette en druk op een toets
> ^@^@^@IO SYSMSDOS SYS~^A^@WINBOOT SYS^@^@U<AA>RRaA^@^@^@^@
It does display something very similar - I figure you are running a
different language from me though cos the text is mine is english
(Invalid Disk etc.)
> then your partition table should be correct (as far as it concerns
> windoze). And can you still boot Linux?
Not sure if it boot windoze just now - LILO fails though so I couldn't
update the kernel or such If I wanted to.
> What does
> fdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 2491 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 1 158 1269103+ b Win95 FAT32
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary:
phys=(1023, 24, 30) should be (1023, 254, 63)
/dev/hda2 159 184 208845 83 Linux
/dev/hda4 313 2491 17502817+ f Win95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5 313 571 2080386 6 FAT16
/dev/hda6 572 1403 6683008+ b Win95 FAT32
/dev/hda7 1404 1467 514048+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/hda8 1468 1589 979933+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda9 1590 1640 409626 83 Linux
/dev/hda10 1641 1768 1028128+ 83 Linux
> fdisk -l -u /dev/sda
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 2491 cylinders
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 63 2538269 1269103+ b Win95 FAT32
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary:
phys=(1023, 24, 30) should be (1023, 254, 63)
/dev/hda2 2538270 2955959 208845 83 Linux
/dev/hda4 5012280 40017914 17502817+ f Win95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5 5012343 9173114 2080386 6 FAT16
/dev/hda6 9173178 22539194 6683008+ b Win95 FAT32
/dev/hda7 22539258 23567354 514048+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/hda8 23567418 25527284 979933+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda9 25527348 26346599 409626 83 Linux
/dev/hda10 26346663 28402919 1028128+ 83 Linux
I've also just run gpart (Thanks Karl) and it displays the correct
information about the partition
Possible partition(DOS FAT), size(1239mb), offset(0mb)
type: 012(0x0C)(DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT, LBA)
size: 1239mb #s(2538207) s(63-2538269)
chs: (0/1/1)-(157/254/63)d (0/1/1)-(157/254/63)r
hex: 00 01 01 00 0C FE 3F 9D 3F 00 00 00 DF BA 26 00
However, I dont want gpart to fiddle with the other partitions since it
doesn't detect them all properly (The linux partition for example isn't
detected properly.
Is there an easy way for me to update the partition info for the first
partition to say 2023, 254, 63 or 157, 254, 63 (whichever would be
right) without fiddling with anything else ?
Any further thoughts.
Shri
PS - Linux boots fine since it is the second partition (as you can see
from the above outputs)
Reply to: