Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:29:51 -0700 (MST)
From:      Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To:        Robert <traveling08@cox.net>
Cc:        "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Invalid fdisk partition table found (fwd)
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111251325020.81363@wonkity.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111125095457.477e9501@dell64>
References:  <201111241116.pAOBGH4i098240@fire.js.berklix.net> <20111124113938.2d99eec2@dell64> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111241326490.69990@wonkity.com> <20111125095457.477e9501@dell64>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Robert wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:45:37 -0700 (MST)
> Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Robert wrote:
>>
>>> [robert@dell64] ~> sudo gpart destroy -F da1
>>> da1 destroyed
>>>
>>> [robert@dell64] ~> fdisk /dev/da1
>>> ******* Working on device /dev/da1 *******
>>> parameters extracted from in-core disklabel are:
>>> cylinders=29 heads=64 sectors/track=32 (2048 blks/cyl)
>>>
>>> parameters to be used for BIOS calculations are:
>>> cylinders=29 heads=64 sectors/track=32 (2048 blks/cyl)
>>>
>>> fdisk: invalid fdisk partition table found
>>
>> The partition table was cleared.
>>
>>> Media sector size is 512
>>> Warning: BIOS sector numbering starts with sector 1
>>> Information from DOS bootblock is:
>>> The data for partition 1 is:
>>> sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD)
>>>    start 32, size 59360 (28 Meg), flag 80 (active)
>>> 	beg: cyl 0/ head 1/ sector 1;
>>> 	end: cyl 28/ head 63/ sector 32
>>
>> And it starts with a default table equal to the size of the drive.
>
> Is it supposed to still show sysid 165 ?
>
> I was under the impression that dd if=/dev/zero would clean out
> everything including sector 1.

The partition table was cleared, that's why it said "invalid fdisk 
partition table found".  Rather than starting with an invalid table, it 
created a valid default table in memory.

>> Do both cards report the same size?
>
> Yes..sort of 28, 29 MB

If they weren't the same, I was going to suggest maybe they've been 
heavily used and worn out.  But I don't know if capacity shrinks as 
blocks go bad and spares are used up, or if they just quit working. 
And I'd expect them to be very different unless they had the exact same 
usage, like in a mirror.

> OT. The last 2 times that I have sent replies to two list regarding this
> question, I have not seen it come through to me. Julian's relies as
> well as yours come through.

Maybe spam or duplicate filtering.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1111251325020.81363>