[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ...

From: Patrick J. LoPresti
Subject: Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ...
Date: 03 Dec 2004 12:24:35 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3

Sven Luther <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
> I am trying to finally understand the CHS problems, especially in light of
> what got explained here : 
>   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108594754632501&w=2
> Not that i care all that much myself, because i use a sane partition
> table format :), but i wonder why we didn't use the method of
> getting the CHS data from the previously written partition table,
> which supposedly worked before ?

Read the rest of the thread.  For example:


Briefly, inferring stuff from the existing partition table does not
help for blank disks and is totally wrong for disks which have been
moved between machines.

I realize my view is contrarian, but I despise "smart" software.  I
can boot any system to DOS, use its rock-stupid fdisk, and always get
a partition table that actually works.  The same is not true for
Linux+parted, which is sad.  Granted, this is partly because the
required information is tricky to obtain from protected mode...  But
it is also because Parted is always guessing what I want instead of
letting me TELL it.

To my knowledge, there is still no way for me to tell Parted what
geometry to use.  Which is frustrating, because I (or rather, my code)
actually knows.

 - Pat

reply via email to

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