On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 08:01:52AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Now, after the disk_image has arrived, it looks very odd. fdisk
> thinks it is 8 times bigger than it really is, and thinks it has 4K
> sectors. I can't use "kpartx" to get at the partition inside it, and
> fsck.ext4 doesn't like its
Hi Stefan,
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 05:31:37AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:32:37PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > What happens if you use diskimages that contain directly a filesystem
> > without going through the trouble of using a partition table?
> > Does `ext4` also
* 2024-01-15 15:20:51-0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> In your dd commands that moved these filesystems, did you specify ibs=
> and/or obs=
> ?
> If so, what values did you use?
"dd" is not a special tool for accessing device files. It's a simple
file copy tool: like "cat" or "cp" but with
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 03:20:51PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> In your dd commands that moved these filesystems, did you specify ibs=
> and/or obs=
No. I don't see how that would make any difference. I could as well
have used "cat|ssh" instead of "dd|ssh". Also note that the image
Nicholas Geovanis (12024-01-15):
> In your dd commands that moved these filesystems, did you specify ibs=
> and/or obs=
> ?
> If so, what values did you use?
Why do you ask this information? How do you think it will be useful?
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 4:58 AM Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:32:37PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > What happens if you use diskimages that contain directly a filesystem
> > without going through the trouble of using a partition table?
> > Does `ext4` also get tripped by the
Hi Stefan,
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:32:37PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Do you need a partition table?
These are other people's virtual machines so to some extent I don't
have a say on what they put inside them. It is always nice to
understand what is going on though!
> What happens if you
> Now, after the disk_image has arrived, it looks very odd. fdisk
> thinks it is 8 times bigger than it really is, and thinks it has 4K
> sectors. I can't use "kpartx" to get at the partition inside it, and
> fsck.ext4 doesn't like its first partition at all.
Thanks for this experiment. I was
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 9:37 AM Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a disk image that sits on top of an LVM logical volume
> that is on top of an mdadm RAID-1 that is on top of a pair of:
>
> Device Model: Samsung SSD 870 EVO 4TB
> Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
>
> so let';s
Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> what I meant was that fdisk showed a single partition of
> 3.2TB size, while the entire disk being only the 400G
Then it's what i would expect from fdisk.
> I did try using fdisk on the destination to delete the partition and
> recreate it with the correct numbers, but
Hi Thomas,
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 02:33:37PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> I wonder, though, why fdisk would misrepresent the total disk size,
> which i would expect to come from the storage device.
> Maybe fdisk is more confused than i expect.
>
> Can you show the whole output of fdisk from
Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> I've got a disk image that sits on top of an LVM logical volume
> that is on top of an mdadm RAID-1 that is on top of a pair of:
> Device Model: Samsung SSD 870 EVO 4TB
> Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical
> so let';s say that is at /dev/foo/disk_image (where
Hi andy,
Am 14.01.2024 um 09:15 schrieb Andy Smith:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 08:01:52AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
If necessary and if there is a way, I *can* nuke off the target
machine's "foo" volume group and recreate the RAID array if I have
to make it 512e format. But obviously I'd like some
On 14.01.2024 13:15, Andy Smith wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 08:01:52AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
If necessary and if there is a way, I *can* nuke off the target
machine's "foo" volume group and recreate the RAID array if I have
to make it 512e format. But obviously I'd like some way to move
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 08:01:52AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> If necessary and if there is a way, I *can* nuke off the target
> machine's "foo" volume group and recreate the RAID array if I have
> to make it 512e format. But obviously I'd like some way to move this
> disk image and have it still
15 matches
Mail list logo
