[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#47653: Is this a bug?
From: |
Brian C. Lane |
Subject: |
bug#47653: Is this a bug? |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:57:28 -0700 |
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:47:12PM -0700, Thomas Groman via Bug reports for the
GNU Parted disk partition editor wrote:
> Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? I didn't know it was
> possible to make gpt partitions 0 sectors wide.
>
> (parted) print
> Model: ATA Samsung SSD 850 (scsi)
> Disk /dev/sdb: 1000GB
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> Partition Table: gpt
> Disk Flags:
>
> Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
> 1 1049kB 3146kB 2097kB linux-swap(v1) grub bios_grub
> 2 3146kB 540MB 537MB fat32 boot boot, esp
> 5 540MB 18.8GB 18.3GB linux-swap(v1) swap
> 4 18.8GB 105GB 85.9GB ext4 rootfs
> 3 105GB 1000GB 895GB
>
> (parted) mkpart fast 500GB -1
> Warning: You requested a partition from 500GB to 1000GB (sectors
> 976562500..1953523215).
> The closest location we can manage is 1000GB to 1000GB (sectors
> 1953523712..1953523712).
> Is this still acceptable to you?
> Yes/No? No
> (parted) mkpart fast 500GB 1000GB
> Warning: You requested a partition from 500GB to 1000GB (sectors
> 976562500..1953125000).
> The closest location we can manage is 1000GB to 1000GB (sectors
> 1953523712..1953523712).
> Is this still acceptable to you?
> Yes/No? No
What created this partition table? It looks like partition 3 is wrong,
it covers 105GB to 1000GB but both partition 2 and partition 5 also use
some of that space. This is likely confusing parted, so I'd say it isn't
a bug, it's just trying to do the best it can with the available space.
Brian
--
Brian C. Lane (PST8PDT) - weldr.io - lorax - parted - pykickstart