Bug 17368

Summary: sfdisk and fdisk give different results
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: brian Correia <brian.correia>
Component: util-linuxAssignee: Elliot Lee <sopwith>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 6.2EE   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-12-15 01:38:06 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description brian Correia 2000-09-08 21:52:02 UTC 
I am running RedHat 6.2E on two Dell PowerEdge 6450 with a shared external
drive array.  The external array has 510GB of drive space and consists of 8
partitions at the hardware level.  At the OS level I am creating 2GB
partitions to use as RAW devices for Oracle.

When I use fdisk to create the primary and extended partitions I start my
first patition at cylinder 1. If I use sfdisk to view these partitions it
states that the first partition statrs at 0+. 
If I use sfdisk to create the partitions starting the first partition at
cylinder 1, fdisk shows that my first partition starts at cylinder 2. 
By looking at the results that the two partitioning utilities give the
partitions overlap by one cylinder. This seems to be consistant with the
results we are seeing from Oracle.

We have installed Oracle and created the tables spaces on the RAW devices.
After Oracle is running for a while we get an error that our data has
become corrupt.  This will happen when data from one partition overlaps
another.

Is one of these utilities better at reporting the actual disk partitions?
Is there some way I can create these partitions and not have them overlap?

If more information is needed please let me know..
Thanks, 
Brian Correia
MBInteractive
415.793.7888
Comment 1 Elliot Lee 2001-07-17 22:32:35 UTC 
Can you describe what you think is the problem exactly? The initial partition's
offset shouldn't have anything to do with overlap between partitions on the same
disk...

My apologies for the former util-linux packager's unresponsiveness.
Comment 2 Alan Cox 2002-12-15 01:38:06 UTC 
No answer in almost two years so assuming resolved