Re: 3rd new wheezy install
On Sunday, February 08, 2015 02:30:32 AM Bob Proulx wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Then why is fdisk complaining?:
[...]
> It is informative to read the fdisk man page and read the BUGS
> section.
>
> man fdisk (on Wheezy 7)
>
> There are several *fdisk programs around. Each has its
> problems and strengths. Try them in the order cfdisk, fdisk,
> sfdisk. (Indeed, cfdisk is a beautiful program that has strict
> requirements on the par- tition tables it accepts, and produces high
> quality partition tables. Use it if you can. fdisk is a buggy
> program that does fuzzy things - usually it happens to produce
> reasonable results. Its single advantage is that it has some support
> for BSD disk labels and other non-DOS par- tition tables. Avoid it if
> you can. sfdisk is for hackers only -- the user interface is terrible,
> but it is more correct than fdisk and more powerful than both fdisk and
> cfdisk. Moreover, it can be used nonin- teractively.)
>
> These days there also is parted. The cfdisk interface is
> nicer, but parted does much more: it not only resizes partitions, but
> also the filesystems that live in them.
>
> The Jessie 8 version seems to have been given some love and rewriten.
> I didn't see a util-linux backport to Wheezy or I would suggest it.
>
> > /dev/sda2 1919979518 1953523711 16772097 5 Extended
> > Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. <------here
>
> That is an extended partition. That is not your swap partition. That
> partition is one of the primary partitions that holds the logical
> partitions. It is the extension to allow more than four partitions.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_boot_record
>
> And this is a good example where fdisk is showing its age. It is
> worried you might violate a concept that doesn't exist anymore. If
> you must use fdisk then you simply must ignore those useless warnings.
> You aren't actually using sda2 other than to hold sda5.
>
> > /dev/sda5 1919979520 1953523711 16772096 82 Linux swap /
> > Solaris
> >
> > But do the math, and it is aligned. fdisk is lying? IDK.
>
> 'fdisk' didn't say that sda5 was not aligned. fdisk didn't complain
> about sda5 at all. fdisk complained about sda2 but that was a
> different complaint. But fdisk was happy with that sda5. It was only
> you that was unhappy.
So it would appear, and in fact the disk sems to be happier that a clam.
> You might want to use parted for alignment checks.
Had to install it, but it agrees, although the last example you show is
confusing, Here I get the 2 not aligned, but your paste says 1.
>
> root@phobia:~# parted /dev/sda align-check opt 1
> 1 aligned
> root@phobia:~# parted /dev/sda align-check opt 5
> 5 aligned
>
> root@turmoil:~# parted /dev/sda align-check opt 1
> 1 not aligned
>
> Bob
1. So it seems I have been barking at the moon. But my first install on one
of these new 4k/sector drives suffered from 20 meg a second drive
performance, so I was an early victim. A Mandrake install IIRC. I liked it,
but then they went toes up. So at that point I went back to the same install
I am using on my cnc machines so that I could write gcode from a warm comfy
chair as apposed to standing up at the keyboards of those machines.
Now this install is compatible with those, I share all 3 machines with each
other via nfs to move code, and with an rt-pre-empt kermel I can at least
run the simulation to check the correctness of my code while carving
imaginary air.
I have other problems that I may ask about, but lets put a ~30~ on this
thread
2. I am finally having a conversation with somene who does appear to be
familiar with the subject/problem, and I thank you very much, Bob.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS
Reply to: