Re: Missing Partition Tables



In article <slrnf1ljrs.ffd.danSPANceswithTRAPcrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
danSPANceswithTRAPcrows@xxxxxxxxx says...
Jim James staggered into the Black Sun and said:
The system seems to be working just fine. I added the 2 IDE drives to
fstab and the drives mount automatically on bootup. I'm curious why I
see "Disk /dev/hde doesn't contain a valid partition table" (both
drives) when I run fdisk -l.

fdisk -l checks for a partition table on all IDE/SCSI disks that are
present. If there's no partition table on a disk, you get that message.

I thought I created partitions on both drives. Maybe I forgot to write
the partition tables to the drives, but the drives are working fine.

Post the fstab entries for the disks. /dev/hde = entire disk, master on
IDE channel 2. /dev/hde1 = first partition, master on IDE channel 2.

Is that because each drive has a single partition using the entire
drive? Is there any downside to doing this?

Some tools expect disks to be partitioned. And if the disk isn't
partitioned, you can't use gparted to resize the partitions and
filesystems on those partitions. Unless you're using LVM on the entire
disk, but you generally want to run pvcreate on partitions for various
reasons. Mostly because if a partition is type 0x8e, you're not going
to try to mount it directly, you'll do vgchange -a y first.

Should I back up the files on the drives, partition the drives, and
copy the files back, or just leave it alone?

Depends on what your long-term plans are and how much data you've got on
the disks. If you can deal with the weirdness of not having a partition
table, and so can everybody else, this isn't necessary.


These are the lines I added to fstab:

/dev/hde /shared ext3 defaults 1 2
/dev/hdg /backups ext3 defaults 1 2

.