[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?
From: |
H. J. Lu |
Subject: |
Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs? |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:06:48 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:12:14PM +1000, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 06:50:26PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > In any case, parted can't handle my 80GB Mator IDE HD and kernel/fdisk
> > work just fine. If you have any patches, I can give them a try. I will
> > keep my patch if no solution is found soon.
>
> Ah, I had a look at the bug report.
>
> How/when did parted create that partition table? Was it during
> a Red Hat install?
>
> I suspect that kernel thought the disk was 155114/16/63, and aligned
> the partitions accordingly. Parted is seeing that now.
Kernel reports
Aug 26 10:42:15 hlu kernel: hda: 156355584 sectors (80054 MB) w/1819KiB Cache,
CHS=9732/255/63, UDMA(66)
H.J.
- Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/26
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Pixel, 2002/08/27
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/28
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/29
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?,
H. J. Lu <=
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, Andrew Clausen, 2002/08/29
- Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?, H. J. Lu, 2002/08/30