[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: libparted and ext2

From: B.Hakvoort
Subject: Re: libparted and ext2
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:00:20 +0200

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 23:59, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> There shouldn't be any difference in this respect between earlier
> versions and 1.6.12.  Can you reproduce any difference?
So nothing has changed in that code? weird, i was quite sure about it..

> libparted does cylinder alignment stuff if it can.  If you want to
> force a particular size, then use ped_constraint_exact(), or use your
> own custom constraint.

I'll try this then. Are there any disadvantages to
ped_constraint_exact() ?
> > - When i create a ext2 partition with fdisk and mke2fs, libparted can't
> > resize it. It throws something like: "this filesystem has a rather
> > strange layout, parted cannot resize this (yet)"
> > Is this known behaviour? or is it just my machine behaving strange?
> Known behaviour.  The current ext2 resizer is very old.  It should
> replaced with e2fsprogs.  (Issues: e2fsprogs doesn't have a library
> interface - it can only work on devices you feed it; error handling
> would be painful)
ok, ic.. Maybe Christian and i can do something about this in the
future, who knows :)

> > - when i resize an empty ext2 partition from a rather small size to a
> > much bigger size, say from 1500 to 25000 MB, the "used space" (it's just
> > created :S) grows *a lot*. Why is this?
> How much?  I'd expect used space to grow a fair bit because of all
> the metadata - inode tables, block/inode bitmaps, backup superblocks,
> etc.
Trying it now.
create new partition of 1500MB.. (94MB used, thats 6%)
resizing to 25000MB... (1564MB used, thats 6%)
create new partition of 314MB.. (20MB used, thats 6%)
resizing to 39080MB... (2425MB used, thats 6%)

It seems consistent behaviour, my apologies :^)

Another small thingy, since 1.6.12 (this time i'm sure!) i have this
warning on my primary disk ("Can't have overlapping partitions" ) The
partitions are definitly not overlapping so i'm curious where this comes
Maybe it has something to do with having an ntfs partition on this disk?



> Cheers,
> Andrew
www.titanium-it.nl --- Open Minded Open Source
www.heavenisopen.com <-----Another Source

reply via email to

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