Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computer Certification > A+ Certification > partitioning challenge

Reply
Thread Tools

partitioning challenge

 
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2009
Ok, what if I showed up at your shop with this? Could you do anything
for me except sell me a new disk?

Hi,
I installed Ubuntu.
Then I foolishly installed Ubuntu.
I might have done this another time.
The boot up sequence was a mess. Windows xp was in it too.

Anyway I have an 80G hard drive. Bios says so, One Ubuntu partition
install screens said so, and a few of the 2007 utimate boot CD
programs say so.

The trouble is that most partition systems, including ubuntu install
say that it is about 75G, the extra missing storage is the size of the
area that ubuntu takes away for itself when installling.

What can I try to restore the disk to the full size?
I have used maxtor low level format. (2007 Ultimate Boot CD)
I have written zeros to all parts of that drive.
I have remove and re-written the partition information several times.
I need a tool that will remove all partition stuff, not just the stuff
below the 75G limit.

Would the 2008 UBCD be any better?

(Oh, yes, I do not have money. Buying some software is generally out.
The challenge would be if I showed up and asked how much for real
results, not just $50 for a 'try'.)

Note: the content of that disk is gone. This is not about content
recovery.

Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gerard Bok
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2009
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean Cleary
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyway I have an 80G hard drive. Bios says so,


>The trouble is that most partition systems, including ubuntu install
>say that it is about 75G, the extra missing storage is the size of the
>area that ubuntu takes away for itself when installling.


You should keep in mind that the amount of diskspace that is
actually available is always less than what the label says.

80 GB on the label means 'almost 80 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes'.
While any application would only indicate 80 GB if there are
indeed 80 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes on the disk.
That, and some overhead, could even amount to a 80 GB disk
showing up as 75 GB, while every bit on that disk is in use.

>What can I try to restore the disk to the full size?
>I have used maxtor low level format. (2007 Ultimate Boot CD)


You shouldn't.

>I have written zeros to all parts of that drive.


Doubtfull. (You can only reach the partitioned portion of the
disk. It never grows bigger when filling it with zeros.)

>I need a tool that will remove all partition stuff, not just the stuff
>below the 75G limit.


So, download dban at http://www.dban.org/ and run it.

>(Oh, yes, I do not have money.


That's the good thing about dban. It comes as free as your
community work.
By the way, dban also does an exellent job in protecting the
PC-benefactor's private data from prying eyes.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2009
On Sep 19, 9:07*pm, Bill Eitner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> * * * * I don't understand the part Ubuntu
> * * * * takes away for itself. *I work at a non-profit
> * * * * where we refurbish PCs to give away. *We use
> * * * * two Linux distributions; Puppy on the older
> * * * * units, and Debian on the newer ones.
>
> * * * * I think your confusion lies in the fact that
> * * * * all file systems have overhead. *Linux uses
> * * * * ext2, 3 and 4, and Windows uses FAT or NTFS.
>
> * * * * In a word, an 80GB drive is only 80GB when
> * * * * it's raw. *Add file systems and even though
> * * * * the partitions have no data some of the space
> * * * * is used.
>
> * * * * What I would do if you brought it in to my shop
> * * * * is connect it to the component test PC. *Then
> * * * * I'd boot it and note the size the BIOS reports.
> * * * * Then I'd boot into Puppy and use G-Parted to
> * * * * look it over and erase all the partitions until
> * * * * it came up as totally unallocated. *If some of
> * * * * the partitions were locked, I'd use a boot CD,
> * * * * my preference is Hiren's, and use one of the
> * * * * utilities like Smart F-Disk to erase all the
> * * * * partitions. *At that point whatever is there is
> * * * * the unallocated space and that's that. *I'd be
> * * * * surprised to see 5GB missing, but if you insisted
> * * * * that was the case I'd compare it to another empty
> * * * * 80GB drive. *If you were indeed correct, I'd
> * * * * give you your drive and tell you I've done all
> * * * * I can.
>
> * * * * And it's not wrong for a person to be paid for
> * * * * his effort and time spent regardless of the result.
> * * * * That's a perspective issue that changes depending
> * * * * on which side of the equation one is on. *Look
> * * * * at it from the other side. *A tech spends his time
> * * * * chasing your mystery 5GB when he could be doing
> * * * * something else for a customer who isn't a chiseler.
> * * * * In both cases work is being done and the time is
> * * * * billable. *With a story like this, guaranteed
> * * * * satisfaction probably wouldn't be on the table.
> --
>


If I was in your shop, I would expect to pay. Sorry. Just would also
expect good results too, right?
If you ever do a ubuntu install, the system default is to take about 4
to 6 Gigs for 2 system partitions, and leave the
rest of the disk for you. But now those partitions are locked away. I
want them back.
Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2009
On Sep 19, 9:07*pm, Bill Eitner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> * * * * I don't understand the part Ubuntu
> * * * * takes away for itself. *I work at a non-profit
> * * * * where we refurbish PCs to give away. *We use
> * * * * two Linux distributions; Puppy on the older
> * * * * units, and Debian on the newer ones.
>
> * * * * I think your confusion lies in the fact that
> * * * * all file systems have overhead. *Linux uses
> * * * * ext2, 3 and 4, and Windows uses FAT or NTFS.
>
> * * * * In a word, an 80GB drive is only 80GB when
> * * * * it's raw. *Add file systems and even though
> * * * * the partitions have no data some of the space
> * * * * is used.
>
> * * * * What I would do if you brought it in to my shop
> * * * * is connect it to the component test PC. *Then
> * * * * I'd boot it and note the size the BIOS reports.
> * * * * Then I'd boot into Puppy and use G-Parted to
> * * * * look it over and erase all the partitions until
> * * * * it came up as totally unallocated. *If some of
> * * * * the partitions were locked, I'd use a boot CD,
> * * * * my preference is Hiren's, and use one of the
> * * * * utilities like Smart F-Disk to erase all the
> * * * * partitions. *At that point whatever is there is
> * * * * the unallocated space and that's that. *I'd be
> * * * * surprised to see 5GB missing, but if you insisted
> * * * * that was the case I'd compare it to another empty
> * * * * 80GB drive. *If you were indeed correct, I'd
> * * * * give you your drive and tell you I've done all
> * * * * I can.
>

.... and thanks for the advice,
Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2009
On Sep 20, 3:59*am, (E-Mail Removed) (Gerard Bok) wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean Cleary
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Anyway I have an 80G hard drive. Bios says so,
> >The trouble is that most partition systems, including ubuntu install
> >say that it is about 75G, the extra missing storage is the size of the
> >area that ubuntu takes away for itself when installling.

>
> You should keep in mind that the amount of diskspace that is
> actually available is always less than what the label says.
>
> 80 GB on the label means 'almost 80 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes'.
> While any application would only indicate 80 GB if there are
> indeed 80 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes on the disk.
> That, and some overhead, could even amount to a 80 GB disk
> showing up as 75 GB, while every bit on that disk is in use.
>
> >What can I try to restore the disk to the full size?
> >I have used maxtor low level format. (2007 Ultimate Boot CD)

>
> You shouldn't.
>
> >I have written zeros to all parts of that drive.

>
> Doubtfull. (You can only reach the partitioned portion of the
> disk. It never grows bigger when filling it with zeros.)
>
> >I need a tool that will remove all partition stuff, not just the stuff
> >below the 75G limit.

>
> So, download dban athttp://www.dban.org/and run it.
>
> >(Oh, yes, I do not have money.

>
> That's the good thing about dban. It comes as free as your
> community work.
> By the way, dban also does an exellent job in protecting the
> PC-benefactor's private data from prying eyes.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Gerard Bok


Thank you for a very good suggestion, I will try it.
Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Eitner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2009
To GB, thanks for the link--dban looks
to be a good little tool although it too
won't bring back/produce space that isn't
available.
--

Gerard Bok wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean Cleary
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Anyway I have an 80G hard drive. Bios says so,

>
>> The trouble is that most partition systems, including ubuntu install
>> say that it is about 75G, the extra missing storage is the size of the
>> area that ubuntu takes away for itself when installling.

>
> You should keep in mind that the amount of diskspace that is
> actually available is always less than what the label says.
>
> 80 GB on the label means 'almost 80 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes'.
> While any application would only indicate 80 GB if there are
> indeed 80 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes on the disk.
> That, and some overhead, could even amount to a 80 GB disk
> showing up as 75 GB, while every bit on that disk is in use.
>
>> What can I try to restore the disk to the full size?
>> I have used maxtor low level format. (2007 Ultimate Boot CD)

>
> You shouldn't.
>
>> I have written zeros to all parts of that drive.

>
> Doubtfull. (You can only reach the partitioned portion of the
> disk. It never grows bigger when filling it with zeros.)
>
>> I need a tool that will remove all partition stuff, not just the stuff
>> below the 75G limit.

>
> So, download dban at http://www.dban.org/ and run it.
>
>> (Oh, yes, I do not have money.

>
> That's the good thing about dban. It comes as free as your
> community work.
> By the way, dban also does an exellent job in protecting the
> PC-benefactor's private data from prying eyes.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Eitner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2009
Sean Cleary wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:07 pm, Bill Eitner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I don't understand the part Ubuntu
>> takes away for itself. I work at a non-profit
>> where we refurbish PCs to give away. We use
>> two Linux distributions; Puppy on the older
>> units, and Debian on the newer ones.
>>
>> I think your confusion lies in the fact that
>> all file systems have overhead. Linux uses
>> ext2, 3 and 4, and Windows uses FAT or NTFS.
>>
>> In a word, an 80GB drive is only 80GB when
>> it's raw. Add file systems and even though
>> the partitions have no data some of the space
>> is used.
>>
>> What I would do if you brought it in to my shop
>> is connect it to the component test PC. Then
>> I'd boot it and note the size the BIOS reports.
>> Then I'd boot into Puppy and use G-Parted to
>> look it over and erase all the partitions until
>> it came up as totally unallocated. If some of
>> the partitions were locked, I'd use a boot CD,
>> my preference is Hiren's, and use one of the
>> utilities like Smart F-Disk to erase all the
>> partitions. At that point whatever is there is
>> the unallocated space and that's that. I'd be
>> surprised to see 5GB missing, but if you insisted
>> that was the case I'd compare it to another empty
>> 80GB drive. If you were indeed correct, I'd
>> give you your drive and tell you I've done all
>> I can.
>>
>> And it's not wrong for a person to be paid for
>> his effort and time spent regardless of the result.
>> That's a perspective issue that changes depending
>> on which side of the equation one is on. Look
>> at it from the other side. A tech spends his time
>> chasing your mystery 5GB when he could be doing
>> something else for a customer who isn't a chiseler.
>> In both cases work is being done and the time is
>> billable. With a story like this, guaranteed
>> satisfaction probably wouldn't be on the table.
>> --
>>

>
> If I was in your shop, I would expect to pay. Sorry. Just would also
> expect good results too, right?


And in our shop, since we're funded by a grant, we can
(and do) deal with customers like you. That's why I
responded in the first place. Only shops like mine
won't arbitrarily turn quests like yours away.

And as of October 1 you'd be billed either way as we
have to show self-sufficiency to continue receiving
grant money. If you didn't like that, we'd hold
your seemingly 75GB drive and use it in some application
where the owner isn't anal about the 5GB.

> If you ever do a ubuntu install, the system default is to take about 4
> to 6 Gigs for 2 system partitions, and leave the
> rest of the disk for you. But now those partitions are locked away. I
> want them back.


I've done Ubuntu installs. Ubuntu currently is the defacto
Linux distribution to use. Where I work we've done a lot
of research with different Linux distributions. I was in
charge of that and was deeply immersed in it. In the end
I felt that Debian, Fedora and Puppy were superior for our
needs. Puppy is clearly the best on older PCs. Fedora
and Debian are a little better than Ubuntu on newer PCs
in my opinion. Mainly that's due to ease of installation
(we train interns where I work) and compatibility.
Personally I prefer Fedora, but it won't successfully
install on some systems where Debian will. Further, one
of our goals is to provide maximum compatibility for our
clients. Debian offers the largest selection of software
packages. In other words, .deb and .rpm are the kings--
and .rpm (Red Hat) isn't always free with respect to Fedora.

The way I understand it, Linux file systems take some space
necessary for the root (administrative) user to recover data
if need be. However, again, if all partitions and file
systems are deleted, the full available size should appear.
That's what I would be showing you and comparing to another
80GB disk should you doubt that all of the space on your disk
is not unallocated after I've deleted all of the file systems
and partitions. And you'd owe me for that work either way.
--
> Sean

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2009

>
> > Sean


Ok, I need to get off of the 'your shop' stuff. I never meant the
discussion to hit anyone's nerve.
I had 80G. If I can get it again, I want that 80G back. I now have
roughly 75G.
I now have a ubuntu system installed. The disk space available is
about 71G.
I am ignoring the decimal point and rounding, so that is why the above
math is a bit off
The amount that is missing is roughly the same as the amount that the
current ubuntu install removed.
It is out there. It is not an artifact of measurement, and i might not
be able to get it back. But maybe...
Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Eitner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2009
Sean Cleary wrote:
>>> Sean

>
> Ok, I need to get off of the 'your shop' stuff. I never meant the
> discussion to hit anyone's nerve.


You need to get off the "my drive has space that
I can't get back" stuff as it makes you look like
an idiot.

> I had 80G.


Raw.

> If I can get it again, I want that 80G back.


Look at it in the BIOS.
There it will always be.

> I now have
> roughly 75G.
> I now have a ubuntu system installed. The disk space available is
> about 71G.


Now it's 71. Your trolling is becoming obvious.
Soon it'll be 60GB because that's the delusion
you're being sucked into. Every Linux install
is going to permanently remove 4 or 5 GB.
In reality that doesn't happen regardless of
the distribution (Ubuntu or otherwise).

> I am ignoring the decimal point and rounding, so that is why the above
> math is a bit off
> The amount that is missing is roughly the same as the amount that the
> current ubuntu install removed.


Ubuntu is not a file system in and of itself.
It uses ext 2 and 3 like most other Linux
distributions. Delete those partitions
and file systems and you get it all back.

> It is out there. It is not an artifact of measurement, and i might not
> be able to get it back. But maybe...


Use a utility that deletes all file systems and
partitions. When it is totally unallocated it
will be as it was. Ubuntu does not permanently
allocate space for itself. The partition utility
simply creates an ext 2 or 3 primary partition and
and a swap partition for the operating system you
have chosen to install. Delete those partitions
and it's back to the way it was.

It's too bad this isn't a local chapter of Craig's
List. I'd have you bring it in and do it while you
watch. There's no voodoo involved here. Do the
right thing and the expected result follows.
--
> Sean

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sean Cleary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2009
On Sep 20, 9:43*pm, Bill Eitner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Sean Cleary wrote:



I have thought of another way to present this problem.
One that might convince you.
I can provide screen shots, but that takes up bandwidth. I have fios,
but your millage may vary.
My city is Chino, CA.

Ok, lets start loading ubuntu. Eventually it gets to the partitioner.
The partitioner says something like, 'do you want to use the whole
drive'`. It shows 80G
But it will not allow me to use more than about 75G.
This is using the same measuring tool, akin to using the same
yardstick.

Also Bios said that the drive was a WDC WD800BB-750KAO
Taking the core WD800BB I find a link that does this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822144102
It is an 80G drive. And this is a mystery, a harder problem than you
might initially suspect.

I had a similar problem with some of the utils on Ultimate Boot 2007,
they would show but not delete the
extra partitions.

Sean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Application "partitioning" BobRoyAce ASP .Net 2 01-24-2005 09:24 PM
Re: partitioning Sartan Dragonbane MCSE 0 04-30-2004 05:29 AM
Re: partitioning Kendal Emery MCSE 2 04-29-2004 09:32 PM
Re: partitioning billyw MCSE 9 04-29-2004 08:29 PM
partitioning no one MCSE 0 04-29-2004 07:02 PM



Advertisments