[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:51:11 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:40:25AM +0000, John Bradford wrote:
> > EFI GPT has some severe downsides (like requiring the last sector on
> > disk, which in linux may not be accessible if the total number of
> > sectors is not a multiple of 2, and making dd of one disk to another
> > impossible if the second one is bigger)
>
> EFI GPT is also a far more elaborate scheme than is necessary for a
> lot of installations.
Is this a problem?
> My 'requirements' are:
>
> * Good magic
>
> We have seen support for not very widely used partitioning schemes
> broken in the past when other schemes are checked for ahead of them.
> A simple scheme with well defined magic values reduces this risk.
I think magic doesn't belong in partition tables. I like probing.
Having the same data stored in two places makes things hairy
if you don't know how to resolve inconsistencies.
> * Simple
>
> The code for some of the partitioning schemes is full of workarounds
> for different implementations. Added complexity, and more variations
> increase the likelyhood of bugs.
If you're not interested in work-arounds, why not use LVM?
> * All partition information stored in one partition table
>
> Linked lists make re-arranging partitions, and backing up the
> partition table more difficult.
I don't think it's very difficult, but I agree that tables are nice
and simple.
Cheers,
Andrew
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, (continued)
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Sergey Vlasov, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andrew Clausen, 2003/11/29
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Arjan van de Ven, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, John Bradford, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Sven Luther, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, John Bradford, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Sven Luther, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX,
Andrew Clausen <=
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andrew Clausen, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andrew Clausen, 2003/11/29
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andries Brouwer, 2003/11/29
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andries Brouwer, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andries Brouwer, 2003/11/30
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Andrew Clausen, 2003/11/29
- Re: Disk Geometries reported incorrectly on 2.6.0-testX, Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2003/11/30