[conspire] GNU parted *won't* create an ext3 file system - argh!

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Darlene Wallach (freepalestin at dslextreme.com):

> I finally realized that when I thought I had successfully created an
> ext3 file system on partition 1 - no file system had been created -
> argh! 

Er...

I hope you realise that _partitioning_ utilities are basically to create
and edit partition tables.  That includes allocating space in the
partition table for where partitions will later be.  Once you're done
creating the partition table and allocating space, you close / leave the
partitioning table.  As a second, separate step, you mkfs the actual
partitions, using entirely different, _formatting_ AKA mkfs software,
such as mkfs.ext3.

So, for example, here are the details of a partition table I posted 
earlier:

# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80000000000 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9726 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xbb59bb59

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *           1        1216     9767488+  83  Linux
/dev/sda2            1217        1459     1951897+  82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3            1460        8510    56637157+  83  Linux
/dev/sda4            8511        9726     9767520    5  Extended
/dev/sda5            8511        9726     9767488+  83  Linux
#

I created that system's partition table using /sbin/fdisk.  That
includes the ~9GB /dev/sda1.  It's important to realise that, when I
finished defining that filesystem's partition table description in
/sbin/fdisk, there still _wasn't any such partition_, i.e., no
data-bearing filesystem capable of being mounted and storing files yet
existed, because I hadn't yet run mkfs.ext3 to create it, let alone
mounted it to make it usable.

You would seek to use GNU parted (_or_ any other partitioning utility)
to lay out the partition table.  Then, you leave the partitioning
utility and mkfs the space thus allocated.  Then, you mount the
partitions (and, if desired, edit /etc/fstab to ensure that the
partitions are easier to mount in the future, and if you wish to ensure
that they are automounted at startup time).

GNU parted, and the various other partitioning applications designed to
work using libparted, offers as a nicety the ability to run the mkfs
step from _inside_ the partitioning utility -- except that GNU parted 
so far is limited in that area concerning ext3-type partitions.


> Looks like I can't use GNU parted for my Seagate FreeAgent Go 1T
> drive.

I'm not at all sure that is the case.  Please note that you didn't
bother to say what precisely you tried that didn't work -- so it's not
possible to intelligently comment on what GNU parted can and cannot do
based on your experience.

However, it just does not stand to reason that GNU parted cannot define
partition table entries for ext3-type partitions.  THere's really not
that much to it!  I mean, _look_ at the incredibly simple data in the
/sbin/fdisk output quoted above.  Notice that the only significant
difference, in that output, between the /dev/sdb1 line and the /dev/sdb2
one is that it's type 83 instead of type 82.  That's really the
sum-total difference between the partition-table data for an ext2/ext3
partition on the one hand (type 83) and a Linux swap partition on the
other hand (type 82).

> cfdisk doesn't support GPT

True, but what's the relevance?

Darlene, I thought I covered this already.  GPT is necesary only for
drives with partitions over 4 TB in size.  If you don't have at least
one partition that large, then you haven't yet outgrown the capabilities
of old-style IBM/Microsoft partition tables.

Now, if for some reason you needed to _read_ (parse) an existing
GPT-type partition table, that would be a compelling reason why you
could not use /sbin/cfdisk or /sbin/fdisk.  But that situation doesn't
apply:  You're blowing away the disk contents as your first step and
then _creating_ (then editing) a partition table. 

So:  You certainly can create and edit a GPT.  Or you can create and
edit an old-style IBM/Microsoft partition table.

I don't want to sound as if I'm complaining, but I -did- say that at
least a couple of times before in this discussion.

> I guess I'm going back to gparted - argh! I would rather use a cli.

I don't know of any reason to think there's anything wrong with GParted 
(other than the strategic consideration I described), but I think your
reasoning is suspect.