[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: parted's cp command for FAT32, and LBA/CHS/NTLDR missing woes

From: Andrew Clausen
Subject: Re: parted's cp command for FAT32, and LBA/CHS/NTLDR missing woes
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:27:59 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:11:11AM +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:35:21AM +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> > > Irrelevant. Bootloaders, mini-drivers are free to ignore LBA flag for
> > > whatever many reasons.
> > 
> > The Microsoft FAT bootloaders respect the LBA flag, however.  At least,
> > all the versions I have reverse engineered do, and I haven't seen
> > any evidence to the contrary.
> If you can't reproduce then google or read the reports people write about
> recovering from boot problems using FAT32 with LBA flag set when they use
>       sfdisk -d device | sfdisk --no-reread -H{255,240,etc} device
> The above command only changes the CHS. If you were right then the above
> wouldn't work.

I couldn't find any instances with Google where (after about 10 min of trying).
In particular, none of the matches for this query are relevant:

        "fat32 (lba)" -ntfs -yast -suse xp "dual boot" problem

> > The NTFS ones don't always.
> The issue is filesystem independent.

Well, the boot loaders certainly aren't filesystem independent.  The
Microsoft's fat16/fat32 boot loaders I've looked at support both CHS and
LBA in a single image.  It's possible that the OEM option to disable LBA
change the boot loader to a different one, however.


reply via email to

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