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

Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions

On Thursday 04 March 2010, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010, David Goodenough wrote:
> > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton.
> > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is
> > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports
> > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no 
> >
> > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which
> > can not see /dev/hda5.
> >
> > The disk is question is a 2.5" 160GB drive, and is quite new.  The 
> > log shows no errors.
> >
> > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without
> > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also
> > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see
> > it).
> >
> > David
> Well I found out a bit more.  Firstly I booted from a Knoppix CD (2.6.19)
> and it sees the partitions just fine.  Then I looked in /var/log/kern.log
> (previously I had been looking in dmesg) and found:-
> hda: Host Protected Area detected.
> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB)
> ^Inative  capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB)
> hda: 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) w/8192KiB Cache,
> CHS=16709/255/63
> hda: cache flushes supported
> hda: hda1 hda2 < >
> hda: p1 size 302343237 exceeds device capacity, enabling native 
> hda: detected capacity change from 137438952960 to 160041885696
> which obviously did not used to happen with the Knoppix kernel, or the
> older 2.6.26 kernel I ran from this disk before.
> Anyone know what this Host Protected Area and what I do with it and
> how I make it detect the disk properly?
> David
I found Host Protected Area on Google, and it said I could turn it off
using hdparm, but when I try it says:-

hdparm -N /dev/hda

The running kernel lacks CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL support for this device.
 READ_NATIVE_MAX_ADDRESS_EXT failed: Invalid argument

Do we need another option turned on in the kernel?


Reply to: