Re: [Linux-NTFS-Dev] ntfsresize: resizing a Vista NTFS partition leads to corrupted partition

[Frans P. <el...@pl...>]

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 =20
> HPFS/NTFS
> 2000:  /dev/sda1   *           1        2550    20482843+   7=20
> HPFS/NTFS

No that is not correct (Vista will not even install into less than 16=20
MB :-)

=46rom the log:
Current volume size: 20972564992 bytes (20973 MB)
Current device size: 20972568576 bytes (20973 MB)

/dev/sda1   *           1        2550    20481024    7  HPFS/NTFS

That is the same in both cases.

> > The corruption only becomes clear _after_ the physical partition is
> > resized too; resizing the partition back to its original size does
> > not get the partition back. ntfsfix does not help either.
> > Note that during the manual resize operation I used fdisk, but the
> > installer uses libparted; the corruption occurs with both.
>
> If the partition was mountable before changing the physical partition,
> it is most likely that the bug is in the partitionning tool, and not
> in ntfsresize.
>
> I know that Szaka (ntfsresize's author) tested ntfsresize on Windows
> Vista's partitions, and it worked. He is in vocation at the moment and
> can not reply.
>
> Can you check the partitioning again, and this time with sectors as
> unit like ntfsresize states (use the "u" command in fdisk). This one
> is the most common cause for the problem at hand.

Hmm. I did not note anything about that in the FAQ (happy to be proven=20
wrong), and it still feels like a regression because with NTFS 1.2 my=20
method did work correctly. However, I will give it a try.

It also feels strange because I did not change the starting sector and the=
=20
end sector was well bigger than the new size of the NTFS partition.

Also note that it means that 2 major linux partitioning tools (fdisk and=20
parted) would be wrong.

> It is always good to check with the latest version. I'd appriciate if
> you check with 1.13.1 instead of an older version.

Ah, I see 1.13.1 has just hit unstable. I will test with that and let you=20
know.