From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 21 09:42:08 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B171065682 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:42:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmail@lists.ukgrid.net) Received: from alpha.ukgrid.net (lists.manap.net [85.159.60.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFFE8FC19 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:42:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmail@lists.ukgrid.net) Received: from vmail by alpha.ukgrid.net with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KsDkd-000LLy-0C; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:42:07 +0100 References: <20081021083415.GA1571@carrot.studby.ntnu.no> In-Reply-To: <20081021083415.GA1571@carrot.studby.ntnu.no> From: "andys" To: Ulf Lilleengen Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:42:06 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: VMail virtual user Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsdlabel partiton c error message on new install X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:42:08 -0000 Hi Ulf, thanks a lot for your answer, previously I'd asked this question on the freebsd-questions list and someone suggested asking it here as they didnt know the answer, however I did get pretty much 2 responces telling me to reinstall the OS!! :S For example I had this answer: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-October/184617.htm l So I assume you would disagree with this and the other person who advised me this was a serious error? And if this actually isnt a problem, does bsdlabel need to be updated (and the man page) to reflect the fact this can be seen on a healthy system? thanks a lot! Andy. > > This is completely ok. The reasons that you might get warnings like this is > that fdisk tries to put the sector number on a cylinder boundary. If that > means that the partition is larger than the actual disklabel size, that is > ok. What would have been a problem is if the disklabel extends past the > partition size! (I think the installer makes sure this does not happen). > > You do waste a few sectors because of this, but unless you are really > interested in getting them back, I would not start bothering with it. One way > to "fix" it is to do a bsdlabel -e and change > c: 285153687 0 unused 0 0 > to > c: 285155328 0 unused 0 0 > > But again, it is not many sectors that is currently wasted. > > -- > Ulf Lilleengen