[CentOS] OT - parted guidance

Fri Jul 31 16:22:59 UTC 2015
Ken Smith <kens at kensnet.org>

m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>> Hi All, Slightly OT as this is on a Centos 6 system
> Not at all OT. We started using parted when we started using 3TB drives a
> few years ago, since fdisk can't handle>  2TB.
>> <snip>
> <snip>
> Wait, you're resizing a partition? I don't know if I'd want to do that
> with data there, unless you were *SURE* there was nothing in that area.
> For future reference, when I partition a disk,

Thanks Mark - What I'd like to try to do is correct my earlier error by 
moving the partition 7/8ths of a 4096 sector down the disk. IE: 7 x 512 
byte 'virtual' sectors. To get the beginning of partition 5 on to a 4096 
sector boundary.

This disk was copied with dd from an original disk that has 512 byte 
'real' sectors. Hence the misalignment.

Parted says that the extended partition begins at sector 462999552 (in 
512 byte sector speak). Currently it says that the first extended 
partition (partition 5) starts at 462999615 which is 7 sectors beyond a 
4096 sector boundary at 462999608.

I take your point about what's between 462999552 and 462999615 (63 
sectors), and the risk of overwriting something important. If I reduce 
that space to 56 sectors would I overwrite any partition table data 
related to the extended partition? I know that extended partitions have 
a linked list of extended boot records that I believe are 1 x 512 byte 
sector long. This describes the basic structure 

My real question was whether my syntax to parted was right. Man pages I 
have seen say this

  move partition start end

and examples I've seen on the web show "start" in MBytes. I want to be 
sure that the move command obeys the unit setting. If it interprets my 
start in the "move 5 462999608" as MBytes I'll most likely need my backup!



This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.