[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Sven Luther
Subject: Re: a (late) question concerning the CHS disaster ...
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:14:13 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:24:35PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> 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:
>   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21FSS-25V-1%40gated-at.bofh.it
> 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.

Well, when we use blank disks, there is no problem, because windows is not
installed on it, right ? And if windows then fail, it is windows fault.

As for machines where disk has been moved, i don't get it. the partition table
is on disk, so using it is always ok, even if the disk was moved.

> 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.

Well, i certainly have no problem at all with parted, but then i use a sane
partition table format (amiga one), and thus have not such problems. And i
indeed read the geometry from an existing one on the disk when reading the
partition table, and let parted create anything it thinks right when creating
a new partition table.

> 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.

Well, you can simply open the device and overwrite bios_geometry, not ? 


Sven Luther

reply via email to

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