Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- From: Baron <baron.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:52:14 +0000
Unruh wrote:
Baron <baron.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
tinkering@xxxxxx wrote:....
/dev/sda1 1 7 56196 16 Hidden FAT16I would start again clear the disk and create a primary partition and
/dev/sda2 * 8 373 2939895 b W95 FAT32
/dev/sda3 374 739 2939895 1b Hidden W95
FAT32
/dev/sda4 740 7296 52669102+ 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 740 1348 4891761 b W95 FAT32
/dev/sda6 1349 1835 3911796 93 Linux
/dev/sda7 1836 2444 4891761 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 2445 3539 8795556 83 Linux
/dev/sda9 3540 7168 29149911 83 Linux
/dev/sda10 7169 7296 1028128+ 82 Linux swap /
Solaris
Command (m for help): q
Script done on Sat Feb 2 18:21:01 2008
an
extended partition to hold any others. DOS/Win doesn't understand
more
than four primary partitions. Linux is quite happy using extended
partitions.
He only has 4 primary partitoins. sda1-4. primary 4 is the extended
and 5-10 are logical on the extended.
My bad ! I read that and still missed it.
Windows cannot boot onto an extended. Also windows numbers the
partitions so that all primary are given letters first and then the
extended. so youhave to be careful exactly how you load on the windoes
partitions so that the numbering ( lettering) of the partitions is not
all screwed up.
Thanks.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
.
- References:
- Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- From: tinkering
- Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- From: Baron
- Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- From: Unruh
- Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- Next by Date: Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- Next by thread: Re: Is it fdisk that's dangerous?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|