Xubuntu install on Win7 laptop fails
Nils Kassube
kassube at gmx.net
Sat Jul 15 08:24:44 UTC 2017
Xen wrote:
> No. The numbers are entries in a table. If you remove an existing
> partition and create new partitions in that space, they will get
> higher numbers (higher indices in the table) while having lower
> physical addresses.
>
> This is why things get out of order. Unfortunately parted does not
> have an option to reorder stuff. But gdisk can:
But what would be the advantage if the partitions are sorted? OK, there
would be no (IMHO useless) warning message, but that's it.
> If you wanted these numbers to always be in physical order, you would
> have to always do this reordering. It just doesn't happen by itself, I
> mean that the parted or gparted tool would also have to always
> reorder the tables.
>
> They are just entries in a list. You have to reorder the entries if
> you want them to have increasing numbers on disk.
>
> The reason, ostensibly, that parted (or gparted) does not do this on
> its own, or by itself, automatically, is because it might change your
> fstab entries and so on.
I think fstab entries using the device name could produce unexpected
results after removing partitions, no matter if the partiton names are
sorted. Example: I have partitions sda5, sda6, sda7 and sda6 is in my
fstab. Now I remove sda5 for whatever reason. Then my fstab entry for
sda6 points to the partition which was sda7 before I removed sda5. Next
I add two partitions in the space which was sda5 previously. If the
entries are not sorted, my fstab entry for sda6 still points to the
partition which was sda7 in the beginning. If the partition entries
would be sorted, my fstab entry for sda6 would now point to the second
of the newly created partitions. So no matter if the entries are sorted
or not, bad things could happen, if someone really uses device names in
fstab entries.
Nils
More information about the ubuntu-users
mailing list