Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:28:29 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: > Actually the problem is (as I have pointed out in the bug report) worse > that this, because while the kernel has been updated to take note of > the HPA, the tools such as *parted have not. So if your disk has an HPA > and you try to partition it using *parted, presumably you will get what > looks like a hardware error, and it will make no sense as the sizes > reported by *parted are the physical ones, not the HPA reduced ones. That's not the only area in which parted lags behind. On the s390 platform, parted does not recognize CMS-formatted disks, but the kernel does. (In fact, on FBA DASD, CMS-formatted disks are the *only* format the kernel supports.) The result is that an entire class of DASD devices (all FBA DASD devices) are effectively unsupported by the Debian installer, and CKD devices which are in CMS format are also unsupported. I had to come up with a rather elaborate procedure to get Debian installed on CMS-formatted disks (see http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/diag250.htm if you're interested.) I think the Debian installer itself would probably work if parted recognized the CMS disk format. It wouldn't need to have read/write capabilities (create partition, delete partition, resize partition, etc.). All it needs to be able to do is to recognize the partition and report its size correctly. I think the Debian installer could probably handle things from there. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/401388077.17005041267804676172.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > 2010/3/5 David Goodenough : > > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > >> 2010/3/5 David Goodenough : > >> > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > >> >> 2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : > >> >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > >> >> >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. > >> >> >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) > >> >> >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) > >> >> > > >> >> > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for > >> >> > LBA48? > >> >> > > >> >> > Mike > >> >> > >> >> The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to > > > > the > > > >> >> kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the > >> >> HDs' company. > >> > > >> > Well the linux tool to do the job is supposed to be hdparm -N, but > >> > that does not work because the correct option is not selected in the > >> > kernel (CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL). > >> > > >> > David > >> > >> Yes, it is absolutely correct respect to kernel, but the second > >> sentences is related to the HD (hardware). The first one reffers to > >> the kernel. > >> > >> francisco > > > > Are you saying there is a hardware tool provided by Samsung? > > > > Anyway, if you look at bug 572618 you will see the solution, it involves > > two parameters for modules. > > > > David > > Yes, it has been a norm for many brands, in fact, some tools work on > many HDs, but i insist it does not look like a hardware problem, it > looks clearly like kernel problem. > > If i were in this situation again, first thing to check, should be > using the old kernel which worked well. after that, if i have the same > problem, testing the HD with cfdisk, fdisk and sfdisk should be > sufficient to discard a hardware problem; first, reading man pages, > and DO NOT DOING any change, do not writing any thing. Also, there are > Debian tools that work very efficiently as testdisk, smart-tools (i am > not sure), and others to check HDs and recover data. > Actually the problem is (as I have pointed out in the bug report) worse that this, because while the kernel has been updated to take note of the HPA, the tools such as *parted have not. So if your disk has an HPA and you try to partition it using *parted, presumably you will get what looks like a hardware error, and it will make no sense as the sizes reported by *parted are the physical ones, not the HPA reduced ones. David > francisco. > > "thanks for the information: > bug # 572618. > You should be able to make the kernel ignore the HPA thus: > > 1. Create a file under /etc/modprobe.d containing the lines: >options ide_core nohpa=0.0 >options libata ignore_hpa=1 > 2. Run 'update-initramfs -u -k 2.6.32-2-686' > 3. Reboot > > Ben." > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003051528.29490.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
2010/3/5 David Goodenough : > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: >> 2010/3/5 David Goodenough : >> > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: >> >> 2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : >> >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: >> >> >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. >> >> >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) >> >> >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) >> >> > >> >> > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for >> >> > LBA48? >> >> > >> >> > Mike >> >> >> >> The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to > the >> >> kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the >> >> HDs' company. >> > >> > Well the linux tool to do the job is supposed to be hdparm -N, but that >> > does not work because the correct option is not selected in the kernel >> > (CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL). >> > >> > David >> >> Yes, it is absolutely correct respect to kernel, but the second >> sentences is related to the HD (hardware). The first one reffers to >> the kernel. >> >> francisco >> > Are you saying there is a hardware tool provided by Samsung? > > Anyway, if you look at bug 572618 you will see the solution, it involves > two parameters for modules. > > David Yes, it has been a norm for many brands, in fact, some tools work on many HDs, but i insist it does not look like a hardware problem, it looks clearly like kernel problem. If i were in this situation again, first thing to check, should be using the old kernel which worked well. after that, if i have the same problem, testing the HD with cfdisk, fdisk and sfdisk should be sufficient to discard a hardware problem; first, reading man pages, and DO NOT DOING any change, do not writing any thing. Also, there are Debian tools that work very efficiently as testdisk, smart-tools (i am not sure), and others to check HDs and recover data. francisco. "thanks for the information: bug # 572618. You should be able to make the kernel ignore the HPA thus: 1. Create a file under /etc/modprobe.d containing the lines: options ide_core nohpa=0.0 options libata ignore_hpa=1 2. Run 'update-initramfs -u -k 2.6.32-2-686' 3. Reboot Ben." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cdeec9051003050659l297ea2c2kd62138bd2a993...@mail.gmail.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > 2010/3/5 David Goodenough : > > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > >> 2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : > >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > >> >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. > >> >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) > >> >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) > >> > > >> > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for > >> > LBA48? > >> > > >> > Mike > >> > >> The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to the > >> kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the > >> HDs' company. > > > > Well the linux tool to do the job is supposed to be hdparm -N, but that > > does not work because the correct option is not selected in the kernel > > (CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL). > > > > David > > Yes, it is absolutely correct respect to kernel, but the second > sentences is related to the HD (hardware). The first one reffers to > the kernel. > > francisco > Are you saying there is a hardware tool provided by Samsung? Anyway, if you look at bug 572618 you will see the solution, it involves two parameters for modules. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003051416.17146.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
2010/3/5 David Goodenough : > On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: >> 2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: >> >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. >> >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) >> >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) >> > >> > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for LBA48? >> > >> > Mike >> >> The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to the >> kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the HDs' >> company. >> > Well the linux tool to do the job is supposed to be hdparm -N, but that > does not work because the correct option is not selected in the kernel > (CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL). > > David Yes, it is absolutely correct respect to kernel, but the second sentences is related to the HD (hardware). The first one reffers to the kernel. francisco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cdeec9051003050605u1aa44d52oc11986b9be193...@mail.gmail.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Friday 05 March 2010, consul tores wrote: > 2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. > >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) > >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) > > > > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for LBA48? > > > > Mike > > The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to the > kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the HDs' > company. > Well the linux tool to do the job is supposed to be hdparm -N, but that does not work because the correct option is not selected in the kernel (CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL). David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003050929.16200.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
2010/3/4 Mike Dresser : > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > >> hda: Host Protected Area detected. >> ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) >> ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) > > Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for LBA48? > > Mike The problem does not look related with HD, it is more related to the kernel. Anyway, You can use a specific tool which is provided by the HDs' company. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cdeec9051003042251i79c8758bjedad5f31e1509...@mail.gmail.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Goodenough wrote: hda: Host Protected Area detected. ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) Is this a PATA drive, and from there, has a jumper on the back for LBA48? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.1.10.1003041645270.17...@router.windsormachine.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thursday 04 March 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:58:02 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: > > I found Host Protected Area on Google, and it said I could turn it off > > using hdparm, but when I try it says:- > > > > hdparm -N /dev/hda > > > > /dev/hda: > > The running kernel lacks CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL support for this device. > > READ_NATIVE_MAX_ADDRESS_EXT failed: Invalid argument > > > > Do we need another option turned on in the kernel? > > Make sure you really know what you're doing if you disable detection > of a system-protected area. If it really is a system-protected area, > it's protected for a reason, and you ought not to let Linux use it. > I'm thinking way back to the IBM PS/2 model 9577 that I used to have. > This machine has a microchannel bus. It had a "system partition" > on the (SCSI) hard disk that contained what used to be on the "reference > diskette" and "advanced diagnostic diskette" on older PS/2 models. It > contained things such as the advanced BIOS routines (BIOS routines designed > to be called from protected mode -- intended for use by OS/2), > the BIOS setup program, microchannel configuration utilities, > diagnostic and testing routines, etc. > > If you wipe that out, the > machine cannot boot *anything* EXCEPT a valid reference > diskette -- a diskette containing what the system partition should > contain. I had to backup the system partition to diskettes > (using IBM's internal backup utility) prior to upgrading to a bigger > hard disk, then boot the reference diskette just created and > re-create the system partition on the new hard disk after installing it. > If I didn't follow that special procedure, my machine was a brick. > > Things are done differently now, of course, but the point is "don't > mess with a system protected area unless you really know what you are > doing". Maybe this is something else, but be sure first. > yes I remember the PS/2 which loaded its microcode from there. But this disk has been run with kernel 2.6.26 which seemed to ignore the HPA, so whatever was there has already been overwritten so I have no problem turning it off. And this is not the disk that came with this machine, its a replacement. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003042130.43204.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:58:02 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: > I found Host Protected Area on Google, and it said I could turn it off > using hdparm, but when I try it says:- > > hdparm -N /dev/hda > > /dev/hda: > The running kernel lacks CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL support for this device. > READ_NATIVE_MAX_ADDRESS_EXT failed: Invalid argument > > Do we need another option turned on in the kernel? Make sure you really know what you're doing if you disable detection of a system-protected area. If it really is a system-protected area, it's protected for a reason, and you ought not to let Linux use it. I'm thinking way back to the IBM PS/2 model 9577 that I used to have. This machine has a microchannel bus. It had a "system partition" on the (SCSI) hard disk that contained what used to be on the "reference diskette" and "advanced diagnostic diskette" on older PS/2 models. It contained things such as the advanced BIOS routines (BIOS routines designed to be called from protected mode -- intended for use by OS/2), the BIOS setup program, microchannel configuration utilities, diagnostic and testing routines, etc. If you wipe that out, the machine cannot boot *anything* EXCEPT a valid reference diskette -- a diskette containing what the system partition should contain. I had to backup the system partition to diskettes (using IBM's internal backup utility) prior to upgrading to a bigger hard disk, then boot the reference diskette just created and re-create the system partition on the new hard disk after installing it. If I didn't follow that special procedure, my machine was a brick. Things are done differently now, of course, but the point is "don't mess with a system protected area unless you really know what you are doing". Maybe this is something else, but be sure first. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/637009979.16829621267737634756.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thursday 04 March 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > On Thursday 04 March 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. > > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is > > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports > > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > > > > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which > > can not see /dev/hda5. > > > > The disk is question is a 2.5" 160GB drive, and is quite new. The kernel > > log shows no errors. > > > > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without > > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also > > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see > > it). > > > > David > > Well I found out a bit more. Firstly I booted from a Knoppix CD (2.6.19) > and it sees the partitions just fine. Then I looked in /var/log/kern.log > (previously I had been looking in dmesg) and found:- > > hda: Host Protected Area detected. > ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) > ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) > hda: 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) w/8192KiB Cache, > CHS=16709/255/63 > hda: cache flushes supported > hda: hda1 hda2 < > > hda: p1 size 302343237 exceeds device capacity, enabling native capacity > hda: detected capacity change from 137438952960 to 160041885696 > > which obviously did not used to happen with the Knoppix kernel, or the > older 2.6.26 kernel I ran from this disk before. > > Anyone know what this Host Protected Area and what I do with it and > how I make it detect the disk properly? > > David > I found Host Protected Area on Google, and it said I could turn it off using hdparm, but when I try it says:- hdparm -N /dev/hda /dev/hda: The running kernel lacks CONFIG_IDE_TASK_IOCTL support for this device. READ_NATIVE_MAX_ADDRESS_EXT failed: Invalid argument Do we need another option turned on in the kernel? David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003042058.02440.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thursday 04 March 2010, David Goodenough wrote: > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which > can not see /dev/hda5. > > The disk is question is a 2.5" 160GB drive, and is quite new. The kernel > log shows no errors. > > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see > it). > > David > Well I found out a bit more. Firstly I booted from a Knoppix CD (2.6.19) and it sees the partitions just fine. Then I looked in /var/log/kern.log (previously I had been looking in dmesg) and found:- hda: Host Protected Area detected. ^Icurrent capacity is 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) ^Inative capacity is 312581808 sectors (160041 MB) hda: 268435455 sectors (137438 MB) w/8192KiB Cache, CHS=16709/255/63 hda: cache flushes supported hda: hda1 hda2 < > hda: p1 size 302343237 exceeds device capacity, enabling native capacity hda: detected capacity change from 137438952960 to 160041885696 which obviously did not used to happen with the Knoppix kernel, or the older 2.6.26 kernel I ran from this disk before. Anyone know what this Host Protected Area and what I do with it and how I make it detect the disk properly? David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003041951.10298.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:57:58 -0500 (EST), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:44:10 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: >>> I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. >>> QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is >>> what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports >>> that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. >> >> What happened to /dev/hda3 and /dev/hda4? How can there be a /dev/hda5 >> without all the partitions in between? > > Using "MS-DOS" partitioning: > > 1-4 are the Primary partitions. Their extents are recorded on sector 0 of > the > drive. > > 5-15 are the Logical partitions. Their extents are recorded in a partition > table store inside primary partition (which is not otherwise used). I think I knew that at one time, but it's been so long since I used an "extended partition" and "logical drives" that I had forgotten it. Thanks for the partitioning lesson. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/348458400.16766651267724228725.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
>> I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. >> QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is >> what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports >> that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > What happened to /dev/hda3 and /dev/hda4? How can there be a /dev/hda5 > without all the partitions in between? If hda2 is an extended partition and there are only two primary partitions, there will be no hda3 or hda4. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/6d4219cc1003040859p3ef6815cnb145c0b223fde...@mail.gmail.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
In <134597558.16750431267720927300.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com>, Stephen Powell wrote: >On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:44:10 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: >> I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. >> QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is >> what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports >> that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > >What happened to /dev/hda3 and /dev/hda4? How can there be a /dev/hda5 >without all the partitions in between? Using "MS-DOS" partitioning: 1-4 are the Primary partitions. Their extents are recorded on sector 0 of the drive. 5-15 are the Logical partitions. Their extents are recorded in a partition table store inside primary partition (which is not otherwise used). b...@monster:~% ls /dev/sd[fg]* /dev/sdf /dev/sdf5 /dev/sdg /dev/sdg5 /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdf6 /dev/sdg1 /dev/sdg6 >> The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which >> can not see /dev/hda5. > >Perhaps qtparted reads the partition table directly, rather than >relying on the kernel for this information. Yes, it does. It's also possible that the kernel doesn't understand the partition table, but qtparted does. I've never had this happen, but it might be useful to see any kernel messages about hda, particularly about partitioning. These messages would appear in /var/log/kern.log, I think. The output of (parted -l) might also be useful. It's possible there's a inconsistency in your partition table that qtparted corrects but the kernel does not. >> I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see >> it). device-mapper or losetup using /dev/hda as the basis device and a rather large, manually calculated offset. If you just want the bytes backed up, just dd from /dev/hda. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:44:10 -0500 (EST), David Goodenough wrote: > > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. What happened to /dev/hda3 and /dev/hda4? How can there be a /dev/hda5 without all the partitions in between? > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which > can not see /dev/hda5. Perhaps qtparted reads the partition table directly, rather than relying on the kernel for this information. > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see > it). This is pure guesswork, but maybe the kernel stopped when it couldn't find /dev/hda3 and assumed that there was nothing beyond. Maybe creating dummy partitions /dev/hda3 and /dev/hda4 would allow the kernel to find /dev/hda5. It's worth a shot. I'm not even addressing the issue of SCSI vs ATA. I'll leave that to those who know more about it. (David, please excuse the duplicate. I accidentally replied to you personally instead of to the list.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/134597558.16750431267720927300.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thursday 04 March 2010, Jordan Metzmeier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, David Goodenough > > wrote: > > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. > > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is > > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports > > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > > > > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which > > can not see /dev/hda5. > > > > The disk is question is a 2.5" 160GB drive, and is quite new. The kernel > > log shows no errors. > > > > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without > > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also > > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see > > it). > > > > David > > What version of Debian is this? What kernel version? Storage controller > type? > > I find it odd that your disks would be named hdx as modern libata > should emulate those drives as scsi. > This is sid, running 2.6.32-2, and the controller is an Intel 82801DBM (ICH4-M) IDE Controller (rev 03). I thought that the libata change was coming in in 2.6.33, but maybe I misread something. The file system was built a little while ago, back in 2.6.26 or earlier days but I can not go back to 2.6.26 as udev would not work. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003041603.15609.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: qtparted and kernel disagree about partitions
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, David Goodenough wrote: > I have a hard drive with a primary partition and an extended partiton. > QTParted says that it has /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 and /dev/hda5 which is > what one would expect, but when I boot the disk the kernel reports > that there are only the /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 partitons, no /dev/hda5. > > The really odd thing is that qtparted is running on the kernel which > can not see /dev/hda5. > > The disk is question is a 2.5" 160GB drive, and is quite new. The kernel > log shows no errors. > > Any idea what might cause this and how to fix it (preferably without > repartitioning the disk as backing it all up would take a while and also > I do not know how I would access the data in /dev/hda5 if I can not see > it). > > David > What version of Debian is this? What kernel version? Storage controller type? I find it odd that your disks would be named hdx as modern libata should emulate those drives as scsi. -- Jordan Metzmeier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50e5edd51003040754t3c6bdc4ai10feb575e7f66...@mail.gmail.com
