fdisk warning message: (Extended) Partition does not start on physical sector boundary
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
When I run fdisk, I get a warning message:
Partition table entries are not in disk order
Here is an example of the command I'm executing and its output:
sudo fdisk -l
[sudo] password for phil:
Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x6058406e
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 63 1012094 1012032 494.2M 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 1026048 1348251647 1347225600 642.4G 5 Extended
/dev/sda3 * 1348251648 1953523711 605272064 288.6G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda5 1244766208 1314039807 69273600 33G 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 1314041856 1348251647 34209792 16.3G 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda7 1028096 1244764159 1243736064 593.1G 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
According to my online research, this warning occurs when the partition's sector doesn't start on the "right sector", as it produces speed penalties when writing. One way to identify this issue is supposedly to check if the sector is divisible by 8; if so, the partition is correct.
The output above, except for the first partition, shows that all the partitions have the first sector divisible by 8, i.e. the Extended Partition 2 and its logical partitions.
Am I correct about that? And if so, why am I receiving this warning?
EDIT
I don't have any encripted partition (neither in linux nor in windows).
The version of fdisk is:
sudo fdisk -version
fdisk from util-linux 2.25.2
linux partition fdisk mbr
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 6 '17 at 14:13
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
When I run fdisk, I get a warning message:
Partition table entries are not in disk order
Here is an example of the command I'm executing and its output:
sudo fdisk -l
[sudo] password for phil:
Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x6058406e
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 63 1012094 1012032 494.2M 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 1026048 1348251647 1347225600 642.4G 5 Extended
/dev/sda3 * 1348251648 1953523711 605272064 288.6G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda5 1244766208 1314039807 69273600 33G 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 1314041856 1348251647 34209792 16.3G 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda7 1028096 1244764159 1243736064 593.1G 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
According to my online research, this warning occurs when the partition's sector doesn't start on the "right sector", as it produces speed penalties when writing. One way to identify this issue is supposedly to check if the sector is divisible by 8; if so, the partition is correct.
The output above, except for the first partition, shows that all the partitions have the first sector divisible by 8, i.e. the Extended Partition 2 and its logical partitions.
Am I correct about that? And if so, why am I receiving this warning?
EDIT
I don't have any encripted partition (neither in linux nor in windows).
The version of fdisk is:
sudo fdisk -version
fdisk from util-linux 2.25.2
linux partition fdisk mbr
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 6 '17 at 14:13
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
When I run fdisk, I get a warning message:
Partition table entries are not in disk order
Here is an example of the command I'm executing and its output:
sudo fdisk -l
[sudo] password for phil:
Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x6058406e
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 63 1012094 1012032 494.2M 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 1026048 1348251647 1347225600 642.4G 5 Extended
/dev/sda3 * 1348251648 1953523711 605272064 288.6G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda5 1244766208 1314039807 69273600 33G 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 1314041856 1348251647 34209792 16.3G 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda7 1028096 1244764159 1243736064 593.1G 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
According to my online research, this warning occurs when the partition's sector doesn't start on the "right sector", as it produces speed penalties when writing. One way to identify this issue is supposedly to check if the sector is divisible by 8; if so, the partition is correct.
The output above, except for the first partition, shows that all the partitions have the first sector divisible by 8, i.e. the Extended Partition 2 and its logical partitions.
Am I correct about that? And if so, why am I receiving this warning?
EDIT
I don't have any encripted partition (neither in linux nor in windows).
The version of fdisk is:
sudo fdisk -version
fdisk from util-linux 2.25.2
linux partition fdisk mbr
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
When I run fdisk, I get a warning message:
Partition table entries are not in disk order
Here is an example of the command I'm executing and its output:
sudo fdisk -l
[sudo] password for phil:
Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x6058406e
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 63 1012094 1012032 494.2M 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 1026048 1348251647 1347225600 642.4G 5 Extended
/dev/sda3 * 1348251648 1953523711 605272064 288.6G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda5 1244766208 1314039807 69273600 33G 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 1314041856 1348251647 34209792 16.3G 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda7 1028096 1244764159 1243736064 593.1G 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
According to my online research, this warning occurs when the partition's sector doesn't start on the "right sector", as it produces speed penalties when writing. One way to identify this issue is supposedly to check if the sector is divisible by 8; if so, the partition is correct.
The output above, except for the first partition, shows that all the partitions have the first sector divisible by 8, i.e. the Extended Partition 2 and its logical partitions.
Am I correct about that? And if so, why am I receiving this warning?
EDIT
I don't have any encripted partition (neither in linux nor in windows).
The version of fdisk is:
sudo fdisk -version
fdisk from util-linux 2.25.2
linux partition fdisk mbr
linux partition fdisk mbr
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
edited Aug 12 '17 at 18:33
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
asked Aug 6 '17 at 1:59
user3889486
1113
1113
migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 6 '17 at 14:13
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 6 '17 at 14:13
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47
add a comment |
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Actually, the message relates to /dev/sda1. That partition starts at logical sector 63 which is not a physical sector boundary. Physical sector size here is 4096 bytes, that is 8 logical sectors (512 bytes).
Usually, slot N in the partition table matches device /dev/sdxN, but for a reason unknown to me, /dev/sda1 seems to be slot 2 in your partition table. I have found evidence of such a weird behavior here (which is about an encrypted disk). Does your disk show some peculiarities like encryption?
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f384310%2ffdisk-warning-message-extended-partition-does-not-start-on-physical-sector-bo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Actually, the message relates to /dev/sda1. That partition starts at logical sector 63 which is not a physical sector boundary. Physical sector size here is 4096 bytes, that is 8 logical sectors (512 bytes).
Usually, slot N in the partition table matches device /dev/sdxN, but for a reason unknown to me, /dev/sda1 seems to be slot 2 in your partition table. I have found evidence of such a weird behavior here (which is about an encrypted disk). Does your disk show some peculiarities like encryption?
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Actually, the message relates to /dev/sda1. That partition starts at logical sector 63 which is not a physical sector boundary. Physical sector size here is 4096 bytes, that is 8 logical sectors (512 bytes).
Usually, slot N in the partition table matches device /dev/sdxN, but for a reason unknown to me, /dev/sda1 seems to be slot 2 in your partition table. I have found evidence of such a weird behavior here (which is about an encrypted disk). Does your disk show some peculiarities like encryption?
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Actually, the message relates to /dev/sda1. That partition starts at logical sector 63 which is not a physical sector boundary. Physical sector size here is 4096 bytes, that is 8 logical sectors (512 bytes).
Usually, slot N in the partition table matches device /dev/sdxN, but for a reason unknown to me, /dev/sda1 seems to be slot 2 in your partition table. I have found evidence of such a weird behavior here (which is about an encrypted disk). Does your disk show some peculiarities like encryption?
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
Actually, the message relates to /dev/sda1. That partition starts at logical sector 63 which is not a physical sector boundary. Physical sector size here is 4096 bytes, that is 8 logical sectors (512 bytes).
Usually, slot N in the partition table matches device /dev/sdxN, but for a reason unknown to me, /dev/sda1 seems to be slot 2 in your partition table. I have found evidence of such a weird behavior here (which is about an encrypted disk). Does your disk show some peculiarities like encryption?
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:16
xhienne
11.9k2654
11.9k2654
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f384310%2ffdisk-warning-message-extended-partition-does-not-start-on-physical-sector-bo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
That partition map is MBR. I think it's complaining that the partitions aren't aligned which could potentially cause a speed penalty and if it were a boot drive might have other drawbacks since the boot loader is written in the first 2048 bytes of the drive (not the first partition). It probably would want partition 1 to begin at 2048 bytes instead of 63 like it is now. I know it's mentioning partition 2 but if partition 1 is off then I would imagine that would be the main wrench in the works.
– Cory T
Aug 7 '17 at 1:50
You should check your fdisk command version and have a look at kernel.org sources kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux. Perhaps it uses a different granularity than the minimum I/O size.
– Emmanuel
Aug 11 '17 at 17:47