On 05/02 06:31, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 02/05/20 02:42, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > On 05/01 09:27, antlists wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2020 09:03, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> >>> Hi Wol,
> >>>
> >>> data copied !:)
> >>>
> >>> I did a
> >>>
> >>> mdadm --examine /dev/sdb
> >>
> >> Except I pointed you
On 05/02 06:31, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 02/05/20 02:42, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > On 05/01 09:27, antlists wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2020 09:03, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> >>> Hi Wol,
> >>>
> >>> data copied !:)
> >>>
> >>> I did a
> >>>
> >>> mdadm --examine /dev/sdb
> >>
> >> Except I pointed you
On 02/05/20 02:42, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 05/01 09:27, antlists wrote:
>> On 01/05/2020 09:03, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
>>> Hi Wol,
>>>
>>> data copied !:)
>>>
>>> I did a
>>>
>>> mdadm --examine /dev/sdb
>>
>> Except I pointed you at a utility called lsdrv, not mdadm ... :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 09:39:12 BST tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 05/02 09:49, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > > I think, I feel better if I repartitioning/reformat both drives,
> > > though.
> >
> > It's not necessary, but if it makes you feel better by all means do so.
> >
> > > *GPT/MBR
> > > From a
On 05/02 09:49, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > I think, I feel better if I repartitioning/reformat both drives,
> > though.
>
> It's not necessary, but if it makes you feel better by all means do so.
>
> > *GPT/MBR
> > From a discussion based on a "GPT or MBR for my system drive" in
> > conjunction
> I think, I feel better if I repartitioning/reformat both drives,
> though.
It's not necessary, but if it makes you feel better by all means do so.
> *GPT/MBR
> From a discussion based on a "GPT or MBR for my system drive" in
> conjunction with UEFI it was said, that GPT is more modern and
>
On 05/01 05:32, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday, 1 May 2020 17:00:56 BST Andrea Conti wrote:
>
> > GPT is fine too, but for a 1TB disk with a single partition it has
> > absolutely
> > zero advantage over MBR.
>
> I can think of one or two people who might demur there.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
On 05/01 09:27, antlists wrote:
> On 01/05/2020 09:03, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > Hi Wol,
> >
> > data copied !:)
> >
> > I did a
> >
> > mdadm --examine /dev/sdb
>
> Except I pointed you at a utility called lsdrv, not mdadm ... :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
Hi Wol,
Ouuouud...oh damn!
On 01/05/2020 09:03, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
Hi Wol,
data copied !:)
I did a
mdadm --examine /dev/sdb
Except I pointed you at a utility called lsdrv, not mdadm ... :-)
Cheers,
Wol
On Friday, 1 May 2020 17:00:56 BST Andrea Conti wrote:
> GPT is fine too, but for a 1TB disk with a single partition it has absolutely
> zero advantage over MBR.
I can think of one or two people who might demur there.
--
Regards,
Peter.
A very *#BIG THANK YOU#* for all the great help, the research and
the solution. I myself am back in "normal mode" :)
You're welcome!
What is the most reasonable setup here:
GPT without any hybrid magic and ext4 because it is so common?
I would go with MBR and a single ext4 partition. GPT is
On 2020-05-01 09:18, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
A very *#BIG THANK YOU#* for all the great help, the research and
the solution. I myself am back in "normal mode" :)
Glad it helped!
One thing remains...
I want to prevent this kind of hassle in the future... ;)
The most important thing to keep
On 05/01 03:59, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 04/30 08:32, antlists wrote:
> > On 30/04/2020 18:04, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > > I copied the first 230GB of that disk to an empty partition of my new
> > > system and run "testdisk" on itafter the analysis it came back
> > > with "this partition
On 05/01 08:52, Andrea Conti wrote:
>
> > does my posting from this morning reached you ?
> > ...I did not received anything back from the mailinglist...
>
> Nope. Just this night's response to Wol.
>
>
(hmmm...ok, two send good news two times is not
that bad in this times, I think... ;)
Hi
does my posting from this morning reached you ?
...I did not received anything back from the mailinglist...
Nope. Just this night's response to Wol.
On 04/30 10:47, Wynn Wolf Arbor wrote:
> On 2020-04-30 22:21, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > It won't, as long as it recognizes it as a protective MBR. Which is the
> > right thing to do, as a disk with a protective MBR and no valid GPT is
> > inherently broken.
>
> True. It was more my intention to
On 04/30 08:32, antlists wrote:
> On 30/04/2020 18:04, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > I copied the first 230GB of that disk to an empty partition of my new
> > system and run "testdisk" on itafter the analysis it came back
> > with "this partition cannot be recovered" but did not sau. whether the
On 2020-04-30 22:21, Andrea Conti wrote:
It won't, as long as it recognizes it as a protective MBR. Which is the
right thing to do, as a disk with a protective MBR and no valid GPT is
inherently broken.
True. It was more my intention to depict what the system "should" do in
order to access
> Since the disk was only ever accessed through an operating system that knew
> solely about MBR, the GPT data meant nothing to it. It happily wrote data
> past the MBR headers. Because the protective MBR is positioned before GPT
> information, the primary GPT header was destroyed and most
Hi Meino,
On 2020-04-30 21:46, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
I had booted into my old system, attached the disks and both show the
same behaviour: Only the device itself (/dev/sdb) was recognized.
Now that is very curious. Just to make sure, the old system definitely
does not understand GPT?
Hi Wolf,
thanks for your great input again!
(see below)
On 04/30 09:27, Wynn Wolf Arbor wrote:
> All the following assuming that the disk was originally partitioned as GPT,
> but after that exclusively accessed as an MBR disk.
>
> > PT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.5
> >
> > Caution: invalid main
On 30/04/2020 18:04, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
I copied the first 230GB of that disk to an empty partition of my new
system and run "testdisk" on itafter the analysis it came back
with "this partition cannot be recovered" but did not sau. whether the
reason is a partition table, which is broken
All the following assuming that the disk was originally partitioned as
GPT, but after that exclusively accessed as an MBR disk.
PT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.5
Caution: invalid main GPT header, but valid backup; regenerating main header
from backup!
This makes sense since the GPT backup at
On 04/30 03:44, Andrea Conti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > CONFIG_PARTITION_ADVANCED=y
> > > CONFIG_MSDOS_PARTITION=y
> > > CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y
>
> That's all you need.
>
> > This could be the key. Sector sizes have been changing from 512 to 4096
> > over many years. If your kernel has been updated
Hi Meino,
Thanks very much for the info. At this point I'm convinced you're
running into the problem Andrea described in another reply in this
thread - best to follow up there :)
--
Wolf
Hi Wolf
thank you very much for your analysis ! :)
On 04/30 03:10, Wynn Wolf Arbor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-04-30 13:17, Wols Lists wrote:
> > All I can suggest is to check the kernel and see if it's an option that
> > has been disabled (512-byte sectors, that is).
>
> As far as I know the
Hi,
CONFIG_PARTITION_ADVANCED=y
CONFIG_MSDOS_PARTITION=y
CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y
That's all you need.
This could be the key. Sector sizes have been changing from 512 to 4096
over many years. If your kernel has been updated to expect/use 4096 byte
sectors, it might not be able to read the
Hi,
On 2020-04-30 13:17, Wols Lists wrote:
All I can suggest is to check the kernel and see if it's an option that
has been disabled (512-byte sectors, that is).
As far as I know the kernel still uses 512 bytes internally [1], and I
do not recall having seen an option that enables or
On 30/04/20 11:36, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> But than I have the same problem another way around: I can
> no longer access my new system ... due to the different
> sector size
>
> Are there any other ways to fix this problem?
All I can suggest is to check the kernel and see if it's an option
On 04/30 10:55, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 30/04/20 10:32, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > recently I switched from the old MBR-scheme to GPT on
> > my new PC.
> >
> > I have two external USB-harddisk, which were partioned/formatted with
> > a MBR-scheme/MSDOS partition (but were never used
On 30/04/20 10:32, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently I switched from the old MBR-scheme to GPT on
> my new PC.
>
> I have two external USB-harddisk, which were partioned/formatted with
> a MBR-scheme/MSDOS partition (but were never used to boot from. They are pure
> data containers).
>
Hi,
recently I switched from the old MBR-scheme to GPT on
my new PC.
I have two external USB-harddisk, which were partioned/formatted with
a MBR-scheme/MSDOS partition (but were never used to boot from. They are pure
data containers).
When I connect these to my new PC, only the device is shown:
32 matches
Mail list logo
