[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [util-linux] [parted] Active partition
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: [util-linux] [parted] Active partition |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:37:09 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
Hi John,
I'm no longer involved with Parted, although I think the general principle
is a good idea. Parted does have a "check" facility, but it is quite
superficial at the moment, and can't recognize many common problems.
I'm sure the new Parted maintainers would be interested in patches ;)
Cheers,
Andrew
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 07:49:29AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Andries
> Andrew
> I've been caught a couple of times on this.
>
> We needed to rebuild a Windows SBS server to a new disk, and resize the
> C: and D: (actually it was labelled F: but never mind) partitions.
>
> As far as I could tell (and I tried), I could not copy C: from Windows,
> so we ended up copying the source disk (80 Gb) with dd on Knoppix to the
> target (bigger than 80 Gb) and mucking around with fdisk and/or cfdisk.
>
> Once we realised there was no active partition and rectified that it
> worked a treat, but it could have taken a _very_ long time for us to
> realise the problem, and many folk wouldn't have.
>
>
> It's not always a mistake to have no active partition (eg Linux only),
> but it often is, particularly when it's the boot drive and
> DOS/Windows/Darwin is involved.
>
> I suggest that the disk partitioning tools in util-linux, and parted, be
> altered so as to warn the user when the partition table being written
> has one or more non-linux primary partitions and none of them is marked
> active.
>
> What do you think?
>
- Re: [util-linux] [parted] Active partition,
Andrew Clausen <=