[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ...
From: |
Patrick J. LoPresti |
Subject: |
Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ... |
Date: |
03 Dec 2004 12:24:35 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Sven Luther <address@hidden> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to finally understand the CHS problems, especially in light of
> what got explained here :
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108594754632501&w=2
>
> Not that i care all that much myself, because i use a sane partition
> table format :), but i wonder why we didn't use the method of
> getting the CHS data from the previously written partition table,
> which supposedly worked before ?
Read the rest of the thread. For example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21FSS-25V-1%40gated-at.bofh.it
Briefly, inferring stuff from the existing partition table does not
help for blank disks and is totally wrong for disks which have been
moved between machines.
I realize my view is contrarian, but I despise "smart" software. I
can boot any system to DOS, use its rock-stupid fdisk, and always get
a partition table that actually works. The same is not true for
Linux+parted, which is sad. Granted, this is partly because the
required information is tricky to obtain from protected mode... But
it is also because Parted is always guessing what I want instead of
letting me TELL it.
To my knowledge, there is still no way for me to tell Parted what
geometry to use. Which is frustrating, because I (or rather, my code)
actually knows.
- Pat
Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ..., Andrew Clausen, 2004/12/03