[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

partitioning a hardware RAID

To all:  I am a redhat LINUX newbie, and our hardware person has just
5 identical new RAID5 drives plus one hot spare (for a total of 7,
counting the
original drive also) onto a Dell 2650 computer
running Red Hat Enterprise WS 3.  The RAID installation apparently went
and the Dell machine boots and Linux runs on it just like it always has.

"fdisk -l" tells me that I have the following device:

Disk /dev/sda:  733.4 GB, 733468426240 bytes
255 heads, 63 sector/track, 89172 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

Device    Boot     Start       End      Blocks     Id       System

/dev/sda1              1        5       40131      de      Dell Utility
/dev/sda2   *          6       18      104422+     83      Linux
/dev/sda3             19    17580   141066765      83      Linux
/dev/sda4          17581    17834     2040255       f      Win95 Ext'd
/dev/sda5          17581    17834     2040223+     82      Linux swap

The size of the device in GB is about what I expected, so I think the
is set up okay and Linux recognizes it correctly.  

I have been asked to add one new partition to this "drive" that uses all
the free space.  If I understand correctly, I need to add a new
/dev/sda6, starting at 17835 and ending at 89172 with Id = 83 and System
Linux, and should be able to use fdisk to do that.  I think I understand
fdisk well enough to do this.  However, I still have a couple of

1.  Do I need to reboot the system into "rescue" mode to do this?  Can't
    I just use fdisk on a running machine as long as I don't mess up the
    existing partitions?  Various documents I find about adding
    suggest that I must boot into rescue mode to use fdisk for this.

    (I have a rescue disk, but when I boot from it, even though I
    "linux rescue" at the boot prompt, the system eventually end up
    into runlevel 5.  I can't figure out how to prevent this.)

2.  My reading of the table above indicates that the swap partition
    with the extended partition.  Am I interpreting this correctly?  If
I am,
    is this arrangement normal?  Is it desirable?  Does it cause any

I would appreciate any suggestions, help, corrections, or clarifications
my understanding of these concepts.  Thanks!

-  Warren Lamboy  

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]