Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I've been setting up my new home workstation for the last week or so. I explored the possibilities of using RAID1 for the pc but had "issues" which now have made me reluctant to depend on it for backup/redundancy. I looked into partimage, but it seems that it would be a lot of work to backup six partitions with an image per partition...
I've used Ghost quite a bit over the last several years and I decided to try it. I cfdisk'd my second now unused raid1 disk and created one partition on it and then a FAT32 fs.
Now, this evening I "broke" my Debian Sid install :-(... I did something stupid as root (not rm -r /, but almost as dumb!). No boot. Kernel panic. No recover with boot disk or Knoppix. I then restored my Ghost image.
I finished the restore and rebooted and voila, it came up fine. Everything appears to be there and working, but there is an odditie. Here is the output of fdisk -l:
Disk /dev/sda: 18.3 GB, 18373349376 bytes
64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 17522 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 257 263152 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 258 2305 2097152 82 Linux swap
/dev/sda3 2306 4353 2097152 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 4354 17521 13484032 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/sda5 4354 5378 1049584 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 5379 6403 1049584 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 6404 15472 9286640 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 15473 17521 2098160 83 Linux
If you notice, I now have /dev/sda4 which is my "extended partition" for the logical partitions. Fdisk -l used to just report sda1,sda2,sda3,sda5,sda6,sda7 and sda8. (You might also notice the "missing" cylinder at /dev/sda8)
Do I need to worry about it? Things seem to be working fine (I typing thins on the workstation in Mozilla right now) but I'm concerned. Do you think this is just a "marker" that Ghost left in the partition table or??? I'm using Ghost 2003 if that makes a difference?
Fdisk -l is doing what it's supposed to do: list the partitions. I notice that you first refer to cfdisk, then later fdisk. Read the man page on fdisk. The discussion states that there are differences in the quality and accuracy of the output of cfdisk, fdisk, and sfdisk. Switching from one to the other may account for the difference in output. So long as things are working OK, don't worry about it. You successfully dodged a bullet.
Originally posted by bigrigdriver Fdisk -l is doing what it's supposed to do: list the partitions. I notice that you first refer to cfdisk, then later fdisk. Read the man page on fdisk. The discussion states that there are differences in the quality and accuracy of the output of cfdisk, fdisk, and sfdisk. Switching from one to the other may account for the difference in output. So long as things are working OK, don't worry about it. You successfully dodged a bullet.
Thanks! I have been using cfdisk to partition disks for a while instead of fdisk, but when I want to just "look" at the partition, I will run fdisk -l (fewer keystrokes :-)...)