Partition Type

[Patrick Dupre]

Hello,

Is there a way to mount these partitions?

Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
Disk model: Mass Storage    
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x73696420

Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
/dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
/dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6 Aux3
/dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown

Partition table entries are not in disk order.


Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user

It seems that sdc4 is bootable
The sizes seem bizarre

Thanks

===========================================================================
 Patrick DUPRÉ                                 | | email: pdupre(a)gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
===========================================================================

[Roger Heflin]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 3:23 AM Patrick Dupre <pdupre(a)gmx.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hello,
>
>  Is there a way to mount these partitions?
>
>  Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
>  Disk model: Mass Storage
>  Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>  Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  Disklabel type: dos
>  Disk identifier: 0x73696420
>
>  Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>  /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
>  /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
>  /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6 Aux3
>  /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
>
>  Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>
>
>  Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>
>  It seems that sdc4 is bootable
>  The sizes seem bizarre 
Partition types are rather meaningless.  They are there and everyone
seems to set it, but when wrong it does not seem to matter.  At best
it is information that is sometimes right.

I have not seen that the partition type has to have any relationship
to what is actually on the partition.

Ontrack was typically used to get around some windows size limit.

What size is the disk?

And odds are these are some variant of a windows fs.

So do "mount /dev/sdc1 /somepointpoint" and see if it mounts and/or
see what the error is in dmesg/messages when you try to mount it.

[Patrick Dupre]

>  Subject: Re: Partition Type
>
>  On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 3:23 AM Patrick Dupre <pdupre(a)gmx.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > Hello,
>  >
>  > Is there a way to mount these partitions?
>  >
>  > Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
>  > Disk model: Mass Storage
>  > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>  > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > Disklabel type: dos
>  > Disk identifier: 0x73696420
>  >
>  > Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>  > /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
>  > /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
>  > /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6 Aux3
>  > /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
>  >
>  > Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>  >
>  >
>  > Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user 
Sorry, this is wrong
/dev/sdc on /run/media/user/Data Logger type vfat
(rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,errors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2)

/dev/sdc                             3856        0      3856   0% /run/media/user/Data
Logger

mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/tmp
mount: /mnt/tmp: special device /dev/sdc1 does not exist.
       dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call

sdc2, sdc3 and sdc4 respond the same way.

> >
> > It seems that sdc4 is bootable
> > The sizes seem bizarre
> 
> Partition types are rather meaningless.  They are there and everyone
> seems to set it, but when wrong it does not seem to matter.  At best
> it is information that is sometimes right.
> 
> I have not seen that the partition type has to have any relationship
> to what is actually on the partition.
> 
> Ontrack was typically used to get around some windows size limit.
> 
> What size is the disk?
> 
> And odds are these are some variant of a windows fs.
> 
> So do "mount /dev/sdc1 /somepointpoint" and see if it mounts and/or
> see what the error is in dmesg/messages when you try to mount it.
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

[Bill Cunningham]

On 9/24/2023 1:24 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>  ... 
>  It seems that sdc4 is bootable
> >> The sizes seem bizarre
> > Partition types are rather meaningless.  They are there and everyone
> > seems to set it, but when wrong it does not seem to matter.  At best
> > it is information that is sometimes right.
> >
> > I have not seen that the partition type has to have any relationship
> > to what is actually on the partition.
> >
> > Ontrack was typically used to get around some windows size limit.
> >
> > What size is the disk?
> >
> > And odds are these are some variant of a windows fs.
> >
> > So do "mount /dev/sdc1 /somepointpoint" and see if it mounts and/or
> > see what the error is in dmesg/messages when you try to mount it. 
Could it be an extra empty space some partitioning tools leave behind? 
Make sure the partition is as big as it can get.

B

[Jonathan Billings]

>  On Sep 24, 2023, at 13:24, Patrick Dupre <pdupre(a)gmx.com&gt;
> wrote:
> >> Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>  Sorry, this is wrong
>  /dev/sdc on /run/media/user/Data Logger type vfat
> (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,errors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2)
>  
>  /dev/sdc                             3856        0      3856   0% /run/media/user/Data
> Logger
>  
>  mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/tmp
>  mount: /mnt/tmp: special device /dev/sdc1 does not exist.
>        dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call
>  
>  sdc2, sdc3 and sdc4 respond the same way. 
Perhaps someone created a partition table on the device, but then wrote a FAT32 filesystem
to the raw device, and the bits on the only filesystem look close enough like filesystem
entries to confuse tools?

-- 
Jonathan Billings

[Tim]

On Sun, 2023-09-24 at 15:44 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>  Perhaps someone created a partition table on the device, but then
>  wrote a FAT32 filesystem to the raw device, and the bits on the only
>  filesystem look close enough like filesystem entries to confuse
>  tools? 
If someone uses more than one partition tool on a drive, you can end up
with conflicting results.

Some tools set info in the boot section, and a back-up somewhere else. 
Some tools handle just the boot section.  Some tools get confused when
the boot section and back-up don't agree with each other.  Others don't
give a damn, and ignore the secondary info.  Never mind the tools which
have different ideas about doing the same things.

Same goes with formatting.  I wouldn't externally format a drive using
different tools and expect it to be problem free.

As a wacky example, I renamed a SD card on a Mac (which changes some
parameters at the start of the SD card, but shouldn't do anything
else).  When I put that SD card into a recorder, it had to reformat
the card.  Fortunately this was a blank card that I was doing an
experiment on.
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.95.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jul 24 13:59:37 UTC 2023 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/24/23 10:24, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Partition Type
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 3:23 AM Patrick Dupre <pdupre(a)gmx.com&gt; wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Is there a way to mount these partitions?
> >>
> >> Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
> >> Disk model: Mass Storage
> >> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> >> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> >> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> >> Disklabel type: dos
> >> Disk identifier: 0x73696420
> >>
> >> Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
> >> /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
> >> /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
> >> /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6 Aux3
> >> /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
> >>
> >> Partition table entries are not in disk order.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>  Sorry, this is wrong
>  /dev/sdc on /run/media/user/Data Logger type vfat
> (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,errors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2)
>  
>  /dev/sdc                             3856        0      3856   0% /run/media/user/Data
> Logger 
That means there is no partition table.  The raw disk was formatted as vfat.

[Wolfgang Pfeiffer]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 07:24:11PM +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Partition Type
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 3:23 AM Patrick Dupre <pdupre(a)gmx.com&gt; wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Is there a way to mount these partitions? 
No idea, because the output below doesn't tell me very much. What tool
did you give the info below. Not 'parted', right?

What does this tell you (maybe omit the output for disks not relevant
for what you're interested in):

lsblk -o NAME,MODEL,LABEL,FSTYPE,FSVER,FSSIZE,FSAVAIL,FSUSED,FSUSE%,MOUNTPOINTS

>> >
>> > Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
>> > Disk model: Mass Storage
>> > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>> > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>> > Disklabel type: dos
>> > Disk identifier: 0x73696420
>> >
>> > [ .... ]

[Tim]

On Sun, 2023-09-24 at 07:40 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
>  Partition types are rather meaningless.  They are there and everyone
>  seems to set it, but when wrong it does not seem to matter.  At best
>  it is information that is sometimes right.
>  
>  I have not seen that the partition type has to have any relationship
>  to what is actually on the partition. 
I've seen that setting a partition type may prompt any subsequent
formatting with a particular default file system.  But yes, you can
format to a different type of filing system and it doesn't update the
partition type.  You probably need to be using an all-in-one tool that
partitions and formats for that sequence of events to occur in a
logical fashion.
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.95.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jul 24 13:59:37 UTC 2023 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/24/23 01:22, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>  Is there a way to mount these partitions?
>  
>  Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
>  Disk model: Mass Storage
>  Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>  Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  Disklabel type: dos
>  Disk identifier: 0x73696420
>  
>  Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>  /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
>  /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
>  /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6 Aux3
>  /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
>  
>  Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>  
>  
>  Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>  
>  It seems that sdc4 is bootable
>  The sizes seem bizarre 
Very bizarre.  Looks more like random data.  The disk claims to be only 
around 4MB.  What is this?

[George N. White III]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 12:30 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt; wrote:

>  On 9/24/23 01:22, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>  > Is there a way to mount these partitions?
>  >
>  > Disk /dev/sdc: 3.83 MiB, 4014080 bytes, 7840 sectors
>  > Disk model: Mass Storage
>  > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>  > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>  > Disklabel type: dos
>  > Disk identifier: 0x73696420
>  >
>  > Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>  > /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
>  > /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
>  > /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53 OnTrack DM6
>  Aux3
>  > /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
>  >
>  > Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>  >
>  >
>  > Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>  >
>  > It seems that sdc4 is bootable
>  > The sizes seem bizarre
>
>  Very bizarre.  Looks more like random data.  The disk claims to be only
>  around 4MB.  What is this?
>  
Looks like a Freescale i.MX28 platform: <
https://duckbill-bsp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/partitions.html>;.

-- 
George N. White III

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/25/23 03:47, George N. White III wrote:
>  On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 12:30 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net 
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>      On 9/24/23 01:22, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>       > Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
>       > /dev/sdc1       1919950958 2464388050  544437093 259.6G 20 unknown
>       > /dev/sdc2       1330184202 1869160489  538976288   257G 6b unknown
>       > /dev/sdc3        538989391 1937352302 1398362912 666.8G 53
>      OnTrack DM6 Aux3
>       > /dev/sdc4  *    1394627663 1394648999      21337  10.4M 49 unknown
>       >
>       > Partition table entries are not in disk order.
>       >
>       >
>       > Actually /dev/sdc2 is mount ls /run/media/user
>       >
>       > It seems that sdc4 is bootable
>       > The sizes seem bizarre
>  
>      Very bizarre.  Looks more like random data.  The disk claims to be only
>      around 4MB.  What is this?
>  
>  
>  Looks like a Freescale i.MX28 platform: 
>  <https://duckbill-bsp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/partitions.html 
>  <https://duckbill-bsp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/partitions.html>>;. 
I'm pretty sure that's only an accident, especially given the other 
emails.  This is random data, those partitions aren't valid and are 
bigger than the media.