GNU bug report logs -
#47653
Is this a bug?
Previous Next
Reported by: Thomas Groman <tgroman <at> nuegia.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:29:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: "Brian C. Lane" <bcl <at> redhat.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:57:28 -0700
with message-id <YG8n6B/VNR1b3Qtx <at> ohop.brianlane.com>
and subject line Re: bug#47653: Is this a bug?
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #47653,
regarding Is this a bug?
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
47653: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=47653
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
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
--
_______________________________________
/ Schshschshchsch. \
| |
\ -- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2 /
---------------------------------------
\
\
/\ /\
//\\_//\\ ____
\_ _/ / /
/ * * \ /^^^]
\_\O/_/ [ ]
/ \_ [ /
\ \_ / /
[ [ / \/ _/
_[ [ \ /_/
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
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
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 45 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.