Partition Error?

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 04:32

I recently installed Ubuntu 10.4 to my laptop as the sole OS. Everything went fine and I even attempted a custom partition set up. Not bad for a newbie noob

BUT

I've run GParted since (see screenshot below) and I can see unallocated 1Mb sectors between partitions? Is this because

a) I've made the stupid schoolboy error of rounding the numbers up to the nearest zero instead of using the 1024 formula when allocating partition size?

OR

b) some other reason?

Any ways of correcting this or other suggestions are warmly welcome, just so that I can correct this if and when I re install again

many thanks in advance

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 08:04

I just defined each partition size as I created them in the custom set up with a new partition table
ie
partition name (/ or /boot or /home etc)
partiton size ( the bit I think I may have fudged it with when I used the up/down arrows and rounded it to the nearest whole number)
file type
etc

For instance the /boot partition should be 100Mb and not 92Mb

That make sense? It's been a long shift and I'm due my sleep

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 08:33

output from fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0007ae84

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 12 94208 83 Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2 12 18734 150379521 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 12 499 3905536 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6 499 6576 48817152 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 6576 18734 97654784 83 Linux

problem might be that I did not define the size of the /boot partition correctly and it's thrown everything out of sync ... might explain why sda3 and sda4 are missing ?

ideas anyone?

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 15:52

masterluke said:
Dont have an answer for you.. but I've seen similar behavour from gparted. I have been SURE I created a partition to fill all of the empty space on a disk - only to discover unallocated free space afterwards.

Thanks for the reply

Think I'll just ignore it for now. Lappy is working fine and it's not as if it's a mission critical server or anything vital to a network. I'll just try to improve on it next time

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 16:59

tried running

fdisk -lu /dev/sda

output =

Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0007ae84

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 2048 190463 94208 83 Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2 192510 300951551 150379521 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 192512 8003583 3905536 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6 8005632 105639935 48817152 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 105641984 300951551 97654784 83 Linux

sorry for the scruffy format... I just cut and pasted out of the terminal window

Essexraptor · 20 Jan 2011 at 20:16

can you explain in really easy terms your instructions on using the method of using the code thingy?

sorry this means nothing to me.... I'm old and need easier instructions than that!!! lol

Thanks for all your help Fourstar... top man and really appreciate it.

I notice that the same amount of empty sectors (2048/9) are between sda6 and 7 so that will account for that gap as well.

Code:

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 2048 190463 94208 83 Linux
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2 192510 300951551 150379521 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 192512 8003583 3905536 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6 8005632 105639935 48817152 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 105641984 300951551 97654784 83 Linux

got the above by putting [ + code + ]

at the beginning and

[ + /code +] at the end so not far away ... what I missing to force the spacing?

Essexraptor · 21 Jan 2011 at 20:08

The initial copy and paste from terminal was done by using my mouse and not keyboard shortcut... so perhaps the format was lost when I pasted directly into the message section in the still open window containing the forum page?

Great analysis.. only in the linux forum could we see such a detailed response

Doesn't do much for our geeky reputation though!! hehe

the differnce between here and say the overclocking section, where peeps always hold just a little info back to feel superior.