Blew away my partition table

Jefferson Ogata poweredge at antibozo.net
Tue Jun 29 21:16:17 CDT 2010


On 2010-06-30 01:53, J. Epperson wrote:
> On Tue, June 29, 2010 21:27, Jefferson Ogata wrote:
>>> Number  Start       End         Size        Type     File system  Flags
>>>  1      63s         401622s     401560s     primary  ext3         boot
>>>  2      401625s     139299608s  138897984s  primary  ext3
>>>  3      139299616s  143380124s  4080509s    primary               swap
>> I would say those end sectors on partitions 1 and 2 should be one less
>> than the following partition's start sector. The end sector of partition
>> 3 looks correct; though the last sector on the disk is 143380479, when
>> you round down to a cylinder boundary you end up at 143380124.
> 
> I was thinking the same thing, but that's what the parted rescue "found",
> so I assumed it was correct.  Looking at another F12 system, what you say
> is how that one is.  Not sure what to do, try it as is or make the
> adjustment.  I do notice from the other system that I should probably mark
> the swap as FS type linux-swap(v1).  The other system looks like:

I don't think it would actually matter with partition 1. If your 
filesystem has a 2kB or 4kB block size, then those extra 2 sectors won't 
ever be addressed. With partition 2, however, the additional 7 sectors 
extend the volume by one or two filesystem blocks (with 3 extra sectors 
on the end).

I would go ahead and extend the partitions to the n-1 values. It's 
always safe to have a filesystem on a block device that is larger than 
the filesystem, but the converse is not true. You can also check the 
superblock with tune2fs -l to see how big the filesytem thinks the block 
device is. "Block count" * "Block size" / 512 should be <= the number of 
sectors.



More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list