Results 1 to 10 of 10
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 06-29-2012 #1
cfdisk vs gparted
I tried formatting some partitions using "cfdisk" ang seemed to have gotten it right. However, when I checked my HD using "gparted" it was showing me a different output. I hope someone can enlighten me in this please. Thanks!
cfdisk (util-linux 2.19.1) Disk Drive: /dev/sda Size: 250059350016 bytes, 250.0 GB Heads: 255 Sectors per Track: 63 Cylinders: 30401 Name Flags Part Type FS Type [Label] Size (MB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sda1 Boot Primary ntfs [XP-Windows] 31453.48 Unusable 0.67* sda2 Primary ext2 [Storage (C)] 32348.57* sda4 Primary ext4 [Ubuntu 11.10] 86793.79* Logical Free Space 0.20* sda5 NC Logical ext4 [Storage (B)] 63240.47* sda6 Logical ext3 10503.69* sda7 Logical HPFS/NTFS/exFAT 22439.43* sda8 Logical Linux swap / Solaris 3279.09* [ Bootable ] [ Delete ] [ Help ] [ Maximize ] [ Print ] [ Quit ] [ Type ] [ Units ] [ Write ] Quit program without writing partition tablenujinini
Linux User #489667
- 06-29-2012 #2
I can't see anything except a blur in your picture, but cfdisk is very old and uses the BIOS partition table. GParted uses the newer GPT (GUID Partition table) which may account for any differences. There is a cfdisk replacement which is imaginitively called cgdisk.
- 06-29-2012 #3
It seems from further reading that parted and therefore gparted do support the BIOS partition table but the article does recommend avoiding cfdisk as it doesn't give the control over partition starting blocks to avoid killing the performance of larger hard disks.
- 06-29-2012 #4
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Clinton Township, MI
I tend to agree, parted and gparted are more current (and easier)
There is not much need to use cfdisk or sfdisk, now that more modern tools are available. If the distribution you are using does not have either parted or gparted, then downloading a small, live distribution, such as the Gparted Live CD, which is small and easily started, can provide that capability for those who do not have it. Check out GParted -- Live CD/USB/PXE/HD for details.
- 06-30-2012 #5
I don't know which one is better, although I realize that GParted is more modern and more up to date.
But if it matters, during my Slack install, I used cfdisk and had zero issues.
- 06-30-2012 #6
I use parted/gparted pretty much exclusively for making changes, but "fdisk -l" is generally part of my system documentation/forensics scripting because it presents some information that's not in the default parted dump. Although some of the geometry info can be bogus because it's being faked out at the bios or controller level.
- 06-30-2012 #7
Would you be kind enough to please post the link to this article elijah?
Might learn a thing or two there. Thanks,
Last edited by nujinini; 06-30-2012 at 01:49 AM. Reason: typonujinini
Linux User #489667
- 06-30-2012 #8
Currently it is a paper article in Linux Format magazine but keep an eye on Tech Radar as they sometimes put their articles there
Last edited by elija; 06-30-2012 at 01:01 PM.
- 07-01-2012 #9
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- SF Bay area
Well, well, well, I just learned something about Ubuntu the hard way and thought I'd share in case it save someone else time. It turns out that the disk partitioning component in the installer isn't smart enough to pick good performance boundaries. So if you let it partition the disks for your system other, smarter, tools like "palimpsest" will throw nasty warning about potentially serious performance problems from the resulting disk layout. So I'm starting over and will partition the drives first, then run the Ubuntu installer.
Figuring out a few other things that are different from Fedora were a challenge too, like how to disable transparent/opaque windows. But nothing else (so far) caused as much rework as the disk partitioning goof.
- 07-29-2012 #10
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Just a heads up for those on there journey seeking optimal HDD partition performance... since it was mentioned here and everyone else doesnt get more confused...
Forgive me its beena while so i may not remember the technical jargon but i think you'l get the point.. I was once dual booting and formatting so i did a lota googling and research to the point were i was either going to become a HDD engineer or Puke!. So this i what i found before quitting...
[note rule:1] As long as your using a competent software developed for the technology of the hardware your using theres Usually almost always Nothing else you need to do. I heard cfdisk is out of date aswell for modern HDDs.
My quest began when i formatted with GParted(just a 160GB HDD) and was confused why other software would sometimes detect things differently, cylinder partition alignments pertaining to disk architecture or whatever for optimial performance.. and what i found when it came down to the nitty gritty is that It Doesn't Matter(as long as u followed rule1 noted above). I'll explain it best i can without researching the links all over again....
Ina nutshell The software detected disk architecture has Nothing to do with the actuall Physical disk architecture, because of a Bios limitation. the physical Disk architecture is translated on the HDD's physical firmware before it can do anything. Ok so then i dug deeper to see if this comunication is theoretically optimized threw proprietary "theoretical" software architectual partitioning formats, and before i almost shot myself it basically comes down to.... If as long as Rule1 is followed above, one theoretical track/cylinder bountry size is just as theoretical as the next cause it all gets jumbled up going threw the BIOS and then the HDD's firmware all the same... The only time iv found reported proof(not just minescuel unmeasurable theoretical optimization) of HDD performance optimization is when a new HDD generation emerges and the current partitioning app's arn't setup by default to format them properly(as stated above in rule1).
I only have 1 example of this, when ~1TBs came out with that perpendicular platter byte or whatever it was u know what i mean lol... and physical sectors on those changed from default 512bytes to enormous 4k... there may of been something with SDD's aswell but i never got into them.
So all in all i just desided... format to MB bounds and not waist any space, as long as the disk size is detected properly and everything works, I'd just watch out like mentioned above ~750GBs just to make sure ur softwares properly detecting the sector size, but its been a while so that maybe auto now too.