m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Hi All, Slightly OT as this is on a Centos 6 system
Not at all OT. We started using parted when we started using 3TB drives a
few years ago, since fdisk can't handle> 2TB.
<snip>
<snip>
Wait, you're resizing a partition? I don't know if I'd want to do that
with data there, unless you were *SURE* there was nothing in that area.
For future reference, when I partition a disk,
<snip>
Thanks Mark - What I'd like to try to do is correct my earlier error by
moving the partition 7/8ths of a 4096 sector down the disk. IE: 7 x 512
byte 'virtual' sectors. To get the beginning of partition 5 on to a 4096
sector boundary.
This disk was copied with dd from an original disk that has 512 byte
'real' sectors. Hence the misalignment.
Parted says that the extended partition begins at sector 462999552 (in
512 byte sector speak). Currently it says that the first extended
partition (partition 5) starts at 462999615 which is 7 sectors beyond a
4096 sector boundary at 462999608.
I take your point about what's between 462999552 and 462999615 (63
sectors), and the risk of overwriting something important. If I reduce
that space to 56 sectors would I overwrite any partition table data
related to the extended partition? I know that extended partitions have
a linked list of extended boot records that I believe are 1 x 512 byte
sector long. This describes the basic structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Boot_Record
My real question was whether my syntax to parted was right. Man pages I
have seen say this
move partition start end
and examples I've seen on the web show "start" in MBytes. I want to be
sure that the move command obeys the unit setting. If it interprets my
start in the "move 5 462999608" as MBytes I'll most likely need my backup!
Thanks
Ken
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos