Win ME + RH 7.1 partition weirdness

Win ME + RH 7.1 partition weirdness

Post by Russel Dalenber » Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:36:38



I just bought a new Dell Dimension PC which came with Windows ME
installed on a 40 Gig disk.

I used fips to decrease the "C:" drive to about 8 Gig, so I could put
the /boot filesystem before cylinder (in case that's still
important).  Then I made another partition for a "D:" drive,
and an extended partition that I split up for Linux.

Running fdisk, I get the following output:

Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 4865 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *         1      1001   8040501    c  Win95 FAT32 (LBA
/dev/hda2          1002      1005     32130   83  Linux
/dev/hda3          1006      2279  10233405    c  Win95 FAT32 (LBA
/dev/hda4          2280      4865  20772045    5  Extended
/dev/hda5          2280      2541   2104483+  83  Linux
/dev/hda6          2542      2607    530113+  82  Linux swap
/dev/hda7          2608      4865  18137353+  83  Linux

In case it matters, here's how the filesystems map:

        /dev/hda1 ==> /dosc
        /dev/hda2 ==> /boot
        /dev/hda3 ==> /dosd
        /dev/hda5 ==> /
        /dev/hda6 ==> SWAP
        /dev/hda7 ==> /home

Everything works fine except for the "D:" drive. Windows boots up
thinking that the partition is unformated.  I reformat it, and it seems
to work OK, until the next time I reboot, when it appears unformatted
again.

When I try to mount the partition under Linux, I get the error:


mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hda3,
       or too many mounted file systems

Are there some weird, little-known rules to setting up partitions that
I'm not aware of?  I certainly don't want 10 Gigs to go to waste.

Anybody have any ideas?

--
Russel Dalenberg

 
 
 

Win ME + RH 7.1 partition weirdness

Post by Svend Olaf Mikkels » Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:02:57



>I just bought a new Dell Dimension PC which came with Windows ME
>installed on a 40 Gig disk.

>I used fips to decrease the "C:" drive to about 8 Gig, so I could put
>the /boot filesystem before cylinder (in case that's still
>important).  Then I made another partition for a "D:" drive,
>and an extended partition that I split up for Linux.

>Running fdisk, I get the following output:

>Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 4865 cylinders
>Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

>   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
>/dev/hda1   *         1      1001   8040501    c  Win95 FAT32 (LBA
>/dev/hda2          1002      1005     32130   83  Linux
>/dev/hda3          1006      2279  10233405    c  Win95 FAT32 (LBA
>/dev/hda4          2280      4865  20772045    5  Extended
>/dev/hda5          2280      2541   2104483+  83  Linux
>/dev/hda6          2542      2607    530113+  82  Linux swap
>/dev/hda7          2608      4865  18137353+  83  Linux

>In case it matters, here's how the filesystems map:

>    /dev/hda1 ==> /dosc
>    /dev/hda2 ==> /boot
>    /dev/hda3 ==> /dosd
>    /dev/hda5 ==> /
>    /dev/hda6 ==> SWAP
>    /dev/hda7 ==> /home

>Everything works fine except for the "D:" drive. Windows boots up
>thinking that the partition is unformated.  I reformat it, and it seems
>to work OK, until the next time I reboot, when it appears unformatted
>again.

>When I try to mount the partition under Linux, I get the error:


>mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hda3,
>       or too many mounted file systems

>Are there some weird, little-known rules to setting up partitions that
>I'm not aware of?  I certainly don't want 10 Gigs to go to waste.

>Anybody have any ideas?

You cannot have two primary FAT partitions on one disk, when the last
partition in any DOS extended partition in the system is not a FAT
partition.

The ID of the extended partition is wrong. An extended partition
ending zero based cylinder 1023 or later must not be type 05.

To make the partition tables correct, you can change the ID of the
extended partition from 05 to 85 (Linux extended) using Linux fdisk.

Note that if data have been written to the disk while the partition
tables were wrong, the location of that data is unpredictable.
--
Svend Olaf

 
 
 

Win ME + RH 7.1 partition weirdness

Post by Russel Dalenbe » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:17:59




Quote:>You cannot have two primary FAT partitions on one disk, when the last
>partition in any DOS extended partition in the system is not a FAT
>partition.

>The ID of the extended partition is wrong. An extended partition
>ending zero based cylinder 1023 or later must not be type 05.

>To make the partition tables correct, you can change the ID of the
>extended partition from 05 to 85 (Linux extended) using Linux fdisk.

I hadn't even realized that there was a "Linux extended" partition type.
I changed the ID of the extended partition, now the FAT partition
seems to stay formatted under windows, and mount correctly under Linux.
Is that all there is to it?

Now, how was I supposed to know that?

Quote:>Note that if data have been written to the disk while the partition
>tables were wrong, the location of that data is unpredictable.

Hum, the Linux partitions seem to be all right.  Nothing seems to have
changed since I changed the partition ID.  Should I reinstall Linux
just to be safe?

--
Russel Dalenberg

 
 
 

Win ME + RH 7.1 partition weirdness

Post by Svend Olaf Mikkels » Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:40:03





>>You cannot have two primary FAT partitions on one disk, when the last
>>partition in any DOS extended partition in the system is not a FAT
>>partition.

>>The ID of the extended partition is wrong. An extended partition
>>ending zero based cylinder 1023 or later must not be type 05.

>>To make the partition tables correct, you can change the ID of the
>>extended partition from 05 to 85 (Linux extended) using Linux fdisk.

>I hadn't even realized that there was a "Linux extended" partition type.
>I changed the ID of the extended partition, now the FAT partition
>seems to stay formatted under windows, and mount correctly under Linux.
>Is that all there is to it?

Yes.

Quote:>Now, how was I supposed to know that?

>>Note that if data have been written to the disk while the partition
>>tables were wrong, the location of that data is unpredictable.

>Hum, the Linux partitions seem to be all right.  Nothing seems to have
>changed since I changed the partition ID.  Should I reinstall Linux
>just to be safe?

The possible problem is what happened when you formatted the second
FAT partition and eventually copied data to the partition. I know
there is a problem, but I never took the time to examine exactly what
happens in a situation like this. In a similar error condition
(different types of DOS extended partitions combined with the last
logical not being FAT), the data is written inside the correct
partition, but at a wrong location).
--
Svend Olaf