Re: Moving partition to an overlapping position

[K.G.]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:57:19 +0300, Ville Herva <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 08:25:44AM +1000, you [Andrew Clausen] wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 05:15:45PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
> > > (parted) move 2 32kB 110GB                                                
> > >       
> > > Error: Can't move a partition onto itself.  Try using resize, perhaps?    
> > > 
> > > What I don't perfectly understand is why this is so hard to implement. 
> > > Isn't
> > > this just a case of copying the 110GB in 10GB (or smaller) chunks towards
> > > the beginning of the disk? I'm probably missing something, right?
> > 
> > The implementation you suggest is dangerous.  If, for example, there
> > were a blackout halfway during the process, you would lose your
> > data.
> 
> That's true (well, unless you keep a log of which chunks have been moved so
> that you can continue or revert the operation after such incident.) 
> 
> Perhaps the feature could still be offered as a "dangerous" operation
> requiring confirmation, --force switch or such? In my case, I have a
> backup.
> 
> I would assume not all the other parted options are 100% power-loss proof -
> for example the various fs resize operations?

All Parted operations are theoretically power-loss proof, including resizing
supported FS. I think introducing non power-loss proof operations could be
disturbing. It would be better to write another program to perform such 
operations.

Cheers,
Guillaume Knispel