Re: Please help with following situation

[Steve Cohen]

I am glad to hear that this is possible.

Perhaps the following fdisk output might shed light on the situation:

$ sudo fdisk /dev/sda

WARNING: DOS-compatible mode is deprecated. It's strongly recommended to
         switch off the mode (command 'c') and change display units to
         sectors (command 'u').

Command (m for help): p

Disk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x000b6a5d

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *           1         947     7605248   83  Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2             973        9730    70337537    5  Extended
/dev/sda3             964         982      143640    e  W95 FAT16 (LBA)
Partition 3 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda5             973        1459     3905536   82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6            1460        9730    66430976   83  Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

Command (m for help): c
DOS Compatibility flag is not set

Command (m for help): p

Disk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x000b6a5d

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *           1         947     7605248   83  Linux
/dev/sda2             973        9730    70337537    5  Extended
/dev/sda3             964         982      143640    e  W95 FAT16 (LBA)
/dev/sda5             973        1459     3905536   82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6            1460        9730    66430976   83  Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order

If not for the "not end on cylinder boundary" and "not in disk order" 
situations, do you think the the general layout of partitions should 
work?  I could possibly reinstall the whole system.  There is not that 
much there.  If so, what should I do differently?



On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:44:19 -0500 Felix Miata wrote
> On 2010/11/21 14:21 (GMT+0800) Goh Lip composed:
>
>
>     Just struck me, normally windows, prior to Windows XP, always insist on
>     being set to the first primary partition
>
>
> That's a myth. Most of my many DOS and Windows primaries are either a 2nd or a 
> 3rd.
>
> What is necessary is:
>
>
> 1: it thinks its C: is _any_ (unhidden) first disk primary
>
>
> 2: no other "first disk" primaries of any type it understands are unhidden
>
>
> 3: at most one primary on any of the first 2 HDs is set active/startable
>
>
> 4: if no boot manager (e.g. Grub) is installed, its primary must be 
> active/startable (via standard/generic MBR code)
> --
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
>
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/