kassube at gmx.net
Sat Dec 7 22:30:06 UTC 2013
> ** Reply to message from Nils Kassube <kassube at gmx.net> on Sat, 07 Dec
> 2013 21:10:44 +0100
> > Bob wrote:
> > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> > >
> > > /dev/sda1 * 63 16064 8001 a OS/2 Boot
> > > Manager Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
> > > /dev/sda4 16065 703309823 351646879+ 5 Extended
> > > Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary.
> > > /dev/sda5 16128 10265534 5124703+ 7
> > > HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
> > >/dev/sda6 10265598 30748409 10241406
> > > b W95 FAT32 Partition 6 does not start on physical sector
> > > boundary.
> > > /dev/sda7 781461504 976771071 97654784 83 Linux
> > > /dev/sda8 703324160 781449215 39062528 82 Linux swap
> > > / Solaris
> > > /dev/sda9 625184768 703309823 39062528 83 Linux
> > I think the end value of the extended partition should be the same
> > as
> > the end of sda9, i.e. the original value was correct. After all the
> > extended partition is a container for the logical partitions sda5 to
> > sda9. Now, if you want to change the size of the swap partition
> > which is between sda7 and sda9, you can only reduce the size which
> > may not be what you want to do. Otherwise you should first reduce
> > the size of (the end of) sda7 or (the beginning of) sda9. But if
> > you simply change the size of sda8 after you gave sda4 a wrong
> > value, you may overwrite some part of sda7 or sda9, depending in
> > which direction you increase the size of sda8.
> Gparted will not show anything on the disk with the partition that I
> listed above. After my change gparted worked properly.
> Notice that fdisk lists the last three partitons out of order (that is
> the way they are chained). The last partition on the disk is not
> sda9 but sda7. So as I see it the end of sda4 should be equal to or
> higher than the end of sda7.
Ooops - I missed that sda7 is the last partition, sorry. Then your
correction of the end value for sda4 was of course right.
And in my previous mail I forgot to answer your final question:
> Still have not found a way to search Ubuntu bug reports so I don't
> know if this is a known problem.
You can search for bug reports here: <https://bugs.launchpad.net/>
More information about the ubuntu-users