I checked the Lenovo website. Removing the T61's hard drive is really simple to do. I suppose you don't have a solid state drive, right? And you can check on the Lenovo forums for why the drive geometry is set this way and how to change it back to a standard configuration. Your laptop's documentation probably says something too. Bob Cochran Robert L Cochran wrote: > I wonder -- if this is an IDE hard drive, do the jumpers on the drive > allow you to change the default geometry? It seems to me that BIOS > interrupt 13h would need to know this same information and it may be > there is a BIOS setting for it too. But I bet the hard drive itself may > let you set the geometry with a jumper or two. So I'm suggesting you > first check the BIOS settings and if need be de-install the hard drive > check for this and see if you can rearrange the jumpering to allow a > more vanilla 255/63/63 CHS arrangement. > > Be real careful to remember exactly where pin 1 is if this is an IDE > drive. And be real tender with those drive pins. Don't bend one into a > noodle shape. That has happened to me. > > Bob Cochran > > > > Chuck Anderson wrote: > >> For reasons known only to IBM, Thinkpads have been shipping with hard >> disks partitioned with a geometry of 240 heads, 63 sectors. Even my >> brand shiny new T61 does this. However, since Linux has stopped >> asking the BIOS what geometry to use, it now defaults to 255 heads, 63 >> sectors. Further, it isn't clear to me how to override Linux's choice >> of hdd geometry in the new world order of libata, nor should that be >> necessary in the normal case to get a sane partition table IMO. >> >> Why should I care, you ask? Isn't disk geometry an anachronism from >> the days of DOS? Well, yes, but the problem is for whatever reason, >> not everything ignores geometry... >> >> For example, Anaconda/parted likes to force cylinder alignment. >> Windows uses the BIOS/partition table geometry which may have a >> different idea about where cylinders begin and end. The reasons for >> these behaviors aren't entirely clear to me. >> >> This leads to /really/ weird partitioning when different programs with >> different ideas of the geometry add/delete partitions from the disk, >> such as strange gaps of free space when you create a new partition in >> Anaconda, or situations where some partition table entries are stored >> using one set of C,H,S values, and others are using a different set. >> This of course also causes programs like "fdisk" and "sfdisk" to >> complain about cylinder boundaries and C,H,S values being incorrect. >> >> What to do about it? Can't we all agree to use the same geometry when >> dealing with the partition table? When Anaconda/parted reads the >> table, shouldn't it deduce the most fitting C,H,S values to use for >> cylinder alignment and writing out new entries? Or shouldn't it ask >> the BIOS what to use, since that seems to be what Windows does? >> >> I used to work around issues like this by using fdisk in VT2 to >> partition things how I like, and then let Anaconda install to those. >> However, it now seems impossible to create a new encrypted LVM PV >> unless you let Anaconda's parted create the PV partition too. Perhaps >> that could be improved upon. >> >> I remember a bit of the fiasco of "I can't boot Windows anymore" that >> happened a few years ago, but I don't know what the outcome/solution >> was. Did the Linux kernel and Anaconda just punt the whole issue of >> trying to match geometries and let things fall as they may? >> >> Whatever was done, it just seems wrong and dirty to end up with a disk >> that has a schizophrenic idea of what geometry to use for its >> different partitions. >> >> --Chuck, who had to create a spreadsheet just to figure out what >> happend to his partition table... >> >> >> > > -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
