From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200007171727.TAA27808@copernicus.cs.utwente.nl>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] linux vs. plan9 partition table inconsistencies?
From: Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:27:12 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dffc3748-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

[I posted this before in a larger message on june 19, but did not see
 a reply, nor could I find another message about this.]

When I installed plan9 (june 12 snapshot) on a tecra 8000 laptop
I already had an unused FAT partition filling the 'end' of the disk.
Still, the plan9 installation program found about 5Mb of space,
resembling more or less one cylinder, which surprised me.

I deleted that last FAT partition, and then made a partion on the disk
using the suggestions of partdisk (fdisk), simply using all space at
the end of the disk. I did not use the sugestion by 'prep' but played
a bit with the numbers, making the last sub-partiion using 'a name . $'.

However, if I now try to look at the partitions on linux (RedHat 6.0)
using 'cfdisk', it complains:  Bad primary partition 3: Partition ends
after end-of-disk. When I use linux  'fdisk' it shows that the
number of cylinders on my disk is 1718, and the Plan9 partition ends
at cylinder 1719. If I use linux fdisk's 'v' command to 'verify' the
partition table it says:
 'Total allocated sectors 27608872 greater than the maximum 2759670'.
Should this worry me? Did I do something wrong when I used plan9 fdisk?


Thanks,
Axel.