[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Undocumented questions

From: Andrew Clausen
Subject: Re: Undocumented questions
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:53:23 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:36:21AM -0400, Ron wrote:
> 1. When you resize does it always do so non-destructively?


> OK, this
> appears to be one of the main purposes of parted, but this is never
> explicitly stated in the documentation!

Maybe we need an FAQ.  I guess these ones would make a start ;-)
/me cuts & pastes.

> 2. If you resize a partition smaller than the space currently in use,
> what happens?  Do you get a warning or is some data lost?

Parted's resizer and partition code uses constraints.  That is,
the file system resizer says what it can do (safely), and likewise
the partition code.

Action will only proceed if all constraints can be satisfied.
However, Parted tries to find the closest solution that satisfies
all constraints.

If you try to shrink a partition too much, then Parted will try
to satisfy the constraint, by finding the nearest solution.  This
"nearest solution" might be a long way away (eg: instead of
shrinking to 100Mb, it shrinks to 20Gb, because that is the
minimum size)

> 3. It would be helpful to identify the fat type (FAT16 or FAT32) for
> each partition in the print command.

Well, the code is organised this way.  Parted sees them as different
versions of the same thing, just like there are different versions
of ext2... (and I'm not talking about ext3, BTW)

I have tried to make Parted "act how it thinks".  I think this is
less confusing in the long run, even if Parted's idea of the world
is often different to what people are used to.

> 4. I understand the cluster limitation in section 6.2 of the
> documentation, but I had to search the internet to find a table of
> cluster size to disk partition size limitations.  It would be helpful to
> add this table to your documentation.


> 5. Is there any way to search your email archive list?  If so, it's not
> apparent to me.  I scanned the entire list to see if any of these
> questions had already been answered, but there ought to be an easier
> way, especially as the list grows!

The popular search engines have indexed bug-parted, so you can probably
do it that way ("search for bug-parted and any other keywords")

I think this would be a useful feature though... maybe you should ask
the pipermail people to implement it.

Andrew Clausen

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]