Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 05:57:02 +0100 (GMT/BST)
From: Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LIB] Phantom disks??
> >
> >The final curiosity is that Windows tells me the extended partition is
> >completely empty. If doesn't show the Linux partitions as non-DOS as
> >I would have expected, but appears not to be able to see them at all.
>
> Usually seems to show them as empty but won't allow you to erase it on the
> grounds that it isn't. I've had to use linux fdisk (or friends) to erase an
> 83 partition before now, and micro~01 is very unhappy about formatting a
> partition it didn't fdisk (e.g. linux fdisk two partitions, the first one a
> bootable vfat and the second a linux 83, then ask windows to format the
> first. It stomps the second...)
Yes, I had discovered that before. I generally make sure I create each
partition with the operating system that is going to live in it.
Hope you are right about windows not letting me create anything in
the extended partition which it shows as empty. However I am not
really game to try it.
> >I suspect if I asked it to make a logical DOS drive, it would happily
> >do so, overwriting the Linux partitions. Clearly there is some
> >compatibility
> >problem between Windows and Liniux created extended partitions which
> >means that if I wanted a Windows partition, I would have had to have
> >created that first in the extended drive.
>
> Yes, in windows/dos.
>
> >
> >So the puzzle I have is - why is Windows showing the extra drive, and
> >where abouts on the disk is it??? Is there any way to find out what is
> >happening without destroying some other part of the disk?
> >
>
> It might be worth reading the MBR and the volume boot records that define
> the partitions with a hex disc editor - but I bet it'll make headaches :)
I have done that, and went to the extend of writing my own bit of code
to parse all the partition information.
This is the output:
rover:/home/digbyt/boot # ./bootinfo
[BANY] Master Boot Record 00000000:00000000
[MWIN] Part 0: 00 01-000-01 06 fe-0c2-3f 0000003f-002fcd02 (DOS 16-bit >=32)
[BSDI] Part 1: 00 00-0c3-01 9f fe-185-3f 002fcd03-005f9a05 (BSD/OS)
[MWIN] Part 2: 00 00-186-01 06 fe-247-3f 005f9a06-008f2847 (DOS 16-bit >=32)
[LILO] Part 3: 80 00-248-01 0f fe-3ff-3f 008f2848-0154bbed (Win95 Extended)
Master Boot Record 00000000:008f2848
[LILO] Part 0: 00 01-248-01 83 fe-258-3f 0000003f-00042ad0 (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 00-259-01 05 fe-264-3f 00042ad1-00071bdc (Extended)
Master Boot Record 00042ad1:008f2848
Part 0: 00 01-259-01 82 fe-264-3f 0000003f-0002f10b (Linux swap)
Part 1: 00 00-265-01 05 fe-2a6-3f 00071bdd-0017499e (Extended)
Master Boot Record 00071bdd:008f2848
Part 0: 00 01-265-01 83 fe-2a6-3f 0000003f-00102dc1 (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 00-2a7-01 05 fe-3ac-3f 0017499f-00578324 (Extended)
Master Boot Record 0017499f:008f2848
Part 0: 00 01-2a7-01 83 fe-3ac-3f 0000003f-00403985 (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 00-3ad-01 05 fe-3f9-3f 00578325-006a6331 (Extended)
Master Boot Record 00578325:008f2848
Part 0: 00 01-3ad-01 83 fe-3f9-3f 0000003f-0012e00c (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 00-3fa-01 05 fe-3ff-3f 006a6332-006cd6bb (Extended)
Master Boot Record 006a6332:008f2848
Part 0: 00 01-3fa-01 2a fe-3ff-3f 0000003f-00027389
Part 1: 00 fe-3ff-3f 05 fe-3ff-3f 006cd6bc-00ad1041 (Extended)
Master Boot Record 006cd6bc:008f2848
Part 0: 00 fe-3ff-3f 83 fe-3ff-3f 0000003f-00403985 (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 fe-3ff-3f 05 fe-3ff-3f 00ad1042-014d228e (Extended)
Master Boot Record 00ad1042:008f2848
Part 0: 00 fe-3ff-3f 83 fe-3ff-3f 0000003f-00a0124c (Linux native)
Part 1: 00 fe-3ff-3f 05 fe-3ff-3f 014d228f-01c4c276 (Extended)
Master Boot Record 014d228f:008f2848
Part 0: 00 fe-3ff-3f 83 fe-3ff-3f 0000003f-00779fe7 (Linux native)
I did create the extended partition under Windows, and then populate it
using Linux, knowing that Windows was more likely to get things wrong
if they were not as expected.
However I see from my program dump above that this has resulted in the
extended partition nominally finishing at the 8GB boundry. Linux seems
to have happily ignored that, presumably it uses the linear addresses
and ignores the head/cylinder/sector stuff which is invalid after 8GB :-/
>
> I wonder if there's any relevance in the fact that you have the extended
> partition set as bootable/active? Windows is unhappy about anything other
> than the first partition set as bootable, maybe changing that will alter
> things?
No - that is not it. The 'BOOTANY' boot manager I am using always leaves
the partition you booted from marked as active. So had I booted
Windows, the windows partition would have been active.
One thing I did find with more experimenting, is that if I remove the
second FAT partition, both D: and E: disappear. So I am wondering if
Windows just doesn't like two primary FAT partitions. I know Windows
FDISK will not let you create more than one. It may be that I should
have put a FAT partition in the extended partition, which is how I
had it organised before I found that it was possible to boot Linux
from the extended partition, leaving three other bootable partitions.
A last clue - Linux does not seem happy to mount the Windows partition???
Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk
**************************************************************
http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list
http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives
-------TO UNSUBSCRIBE-------
Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be
addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text
on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe
--------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------
Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest
**************************************************************
