Re: parted: problem with BR on /dev/hda3

[Andrew Clausen]

address@hidden wrote:
> 
>   sorry, it is me again.
>   I tried all your hints, but all without success:
> 
>   My problem was/is:
>        I want to copy a FAT partition which is in /dev/hda1
>        but all partition tools have a problem with /dev/hda3.
>        --> parted refuses to do any operation with /dev/hda.
>        ( my last mail with the complete description is at the end )
>       [but: I work since 2 years without any problems on this partition.]
> 
>   Your hints were:
> 
>  1) # parted /dev/hda1 cp /dev/hde 2
>     results in the following error

This is incorrect syntax for CP.  Even if you don't use the partition
table, Parted has a "fake" partition table.  Do:

        # parted /dev/hda1 print

To see what I mean ;-)

So, you want:

        # parted /dev/hda1 cp 1 /dev/hde 2

>  2) using gpart
>    a) gpart -E -c -W /dev/hda -l present_hda.log dev/hda
>     gives me correctly:
>     |------------------------------------------------------------
>     |Primary partition(3)
>     |   type: 131(0x83)(Linux ext2 filesystem)
>     |   size: 960mb #s(1967616) s(2265984-4233599)
>     |   chs:  (281/0/1)-(524/127/63)d (281/0/1)-(524/127/63)r
>                            ^                       ^
>     |------------------------------------------------------------
>       (the above command should also install this correct guess at /dev/hda)
> 
>       but when I save afterwards the partition table again to file
>       and run  "gpart -vdg file"
>       I get again 523.  ( also with fdisk x p )
> 
>       I have still an old backup which I saved when I installed Lilo
>       the first time. (/boot/boot.0300).
>       gpart -vdg /boot/boot.0300  gives me correctly 524.
>       I also installed this MBR again using
>          dd if=/boot/boot.0300 of=/dev/hda bs=446 count=1
>       but fdisk x p gave again 523.
> 
>       History:
>        I had originally lilo installed in /dev/hda and changed this a few
>        month ago to /dev/hda3.
>           (installing the original /boot/boot.0300 again)
> 
>     Is it possible that these missleading numbers are caused by
>     my lilo installation ?

I doubt it.

> Eg: # parted /dev/hda1 cp /dev/hde 2

Oops.  I missed out the "1".

Andrew Clausen