[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fix for the XP dual boot problem



shmuel siegel wrote:
 > I am curious if the following problem is what is meant to be fixed by
this method. Is it considered safe. I tend to feel that since I can
currently use both win2k and linux, and they can read each others
partitions, I should leave everything alone. Especially, since I don't
have the ability to backup 40g of data. Am I fooling myself and should
really try to make the disks consistent?

sfdisk -l /dev/hdb gives
Disk /dev/hdb: 158816 cylinders, 16 heads, 63 sectors/track
Warning: extended partition does not start at a cylinder boundary.
DOS and Linux will interpret the contents differently.
Units = cylinders of 516096 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0
Device Boot Start End #cyls #blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 * 0+ 40640- 40641- 20482843+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
end: (c,h,s) expected (1023,15,63) found (1023,254,63)
/dev/hdb2 40640+ 81281- 40641- 20482875 83 Linux
/dev/hdb3 81281+ 97840- 16560- 8345767+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
start: (c,h,s) expected (1023,15,63) found (1023,0,1)
/dev/hdb4 97840+ 158801- 60961- 30724312+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
start: (c,h,s) expected (1023,15,63) found (1023,0,1)
/dev/hdb5 97840+ 158801- 60961- 30724281 b W95 FAT32
start: (c,h,s) expected (1023,15,63) found (1023,1,1)


running sfdisk -d /dev/hdb gives
Warning: extended partition does not start at a cylinder boundary.
DOS and Linux will interpret the contents differently.
# partition table of /dev/hdb
unit: sectors
/dev/hdb1 : start= 63, size= 40965687, Id= 7, bootable
/dev/hdb2 : start= 40965750, size= 40965750, Id=83
/dev/hdb3 : start= 81931500, size= 16691535, Id= 7
/dev/hdb4 : start= 98623035, size= 61448625, Id= f
/dev/hdb5 : start= 98623098, size= 61448562, Id= b



I am not sure if it is the same problem, but you may try


sfdisk -l -H255 /dev/hdb

and see if the warnings are still there. Your initial geometry probably was 255 heads, from the (1023,254,63) on hdb1.
Anyway, if you can boot into win2k you should be fine. It is just the 2.6 kernel which in some cases does not report the correct disk geometry.


--
Radu



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]