|
From: Yuval F. <yu...@gm...> - 2006-07-24 23:25:04
|
On 7/24/06, Frans Pop <el...@pl...> wrote: > Thanks for your quick reaction Yuval. > > On Monday 24 July 2006 19:42, Yuval Fledel wrote: > > > The two are completely similar, except that the first is successful > > > and the second leads to corruption. > > > > I noticed that the original partition was not the same in both cases. > > example: > > Vista: /dev/sda1 * 1 1217 9775521 7 > > HPFS/NTFS > > 2000: /dev/sda1 * 1 2550 20482843+ 7 > > HPFS/NTFS > > No that is not correct (Vista will not even install into less than 16 > MB :-) Sorry, I copied the wrong line for Vista. /dev/sda1 * 1 2550 20481024 7 HPFS/NTFS 20482843+ is different than 20481024. I know for sure that when I repartitioned my disk, and entered the same number, only that it showed with no +, Windows no longer agreed to boot. Returning the partition table to what it was saved the day. > It also feels strange because I did not change the starting sector and the > end sector was well bigger than the new size of the NTFS partition. When you work with a "cluster" unit, fdisk sometimes move the starting sector. This is because a cluster may contain several sectors, and the original starting sector may not be cluster-aligned. When the first sector moves, the tools and the kernel driver can no longer mount the partition. > Ah, I see 1.13.1 has just hit unstable. I will test with that and let you > know. Thanks, that would be helpful. -- Yuval Fledel |
