Should unused partitions be removed?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I downloaded a jessie raspbian image and it shows two partitions.



[Michael@devserver ~]$ fdisk -l 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img
You must set cylinders.
You can do this from the extra functions menu.

Disk 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img: 0 MB, 0 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img1 1 6 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img2 6 210 1638081 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
[Michael@devserver ~]$


I copied the image to a SD which had previously been used (sorry, I don't have the fdisk output before copying the image):



[Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo dd bs=4M if=2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img of=/dev/sdf
411+1 records in
411+1 records out
1725629563 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 149.961 s, 11.5 MB/s
[Michael@devserver ~]$


Inspecting the device now shows the following:



[Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdf

Disk /dev/sdf: 31.9 GB, 31914983424 bytes
64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 30436 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdf1 5 46 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sdf2 47 1646 1638081 83 Linux
Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.

[Michael@devserver ~]$ lsblk -f /dev/sdf
NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT
sdf
├─sdf1
├─sdf2
├─sdf5
├─sdf6
└─sdf7
[Michael@devserver ~]$ cat /proc/partitions | grep sdf
8 80 31166976 sdf
8 81 1243951 sdf1
8 82 1 sdf2
8 85 32767 sdf5
8 86 67584 sdf6
8 87 29815296 sdf7
[Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sdf*
/dev/sdf1: LABEL="boot" UUID="109A-9113" TYPE="vfat"
[Michael@devserver ~]$


Why do partitions sdf5, sdf6, and sdf7 still exist? Should they be removed, and if so, how?







share|improve this question
























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I downloaded a jessie raspbian image and it shows two partitions.



    [Michael@devserver ~]$ fdisk -l 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img
    You must set cylinders.
    You can do this from the extra functions menu.

    Disk 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img: 0 MB, 0 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
    Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
    I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
    Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img1 1 6 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
    Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
    2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img2 6 210 1638081 83 Linux
    Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
    [Michael@devserver ~]$


    I copied the image to a SD which had previously been used (sorry, I don't have the fdisk output before copying the image):



    [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo dd bs=4M if=2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img of=/dev/sdf
    411+1 records in
    411+1 records out
    1725629563 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 149.961 s, 11.5 MB/s
    [Michael@devserver ~]$


    Inspecting the device now shows the following:



    [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdf

    Disk /dev/sdf: 31.9 GB, 31914983424 bytes
    64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 30436 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
    Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
    I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
    Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    /dev/sdf1 5 46 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
    Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
    /dev/sdf2 47 1646 1638081 83 Linux
    Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.

    [Michael@devserver ~]$ lsblk -f /dev/sdf
    NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT
    sdf
    ├─sdf1
    ├─sdf2
    ├─sdf5
    ├─sdf6
    └─sdf7
    [Michael@devserver ~]$ cat /proc/partitions | grep sdf
    8 80 31166976 sdf
    8 81 1243951 sdf1
    8 82 1 sdf2
    8 85 32767 sdf5
    8 86 67584 sdf6
    8 87 29815296 sdf7
    [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sdf*
    /dev/sdf1: LABEL="boot" UUID="109A-9113" TYPE="vfat"
    [Michael@devserver ~]$


    Why do partitions sdf5, sdf6, and sdf7 still exist? Should they be removed, and if so, how?







    share|improve this question






















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I downloaded a jessie raspbian image and it shows two partitions.



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ fdisk -l 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img
      You must set cylinders.
      You can do this from the extra functions menu.

      Disk 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img: 0 MB, 0 bytes
      255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders
      Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
      Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

      Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
      2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img1 1 6 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
      Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img2 6 210 1638081 83 Linux
      Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      I copied the image to a SD which had previously been used (sorry, I don't have the fdisk output before copying the image):



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo dd bs=4M if=2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img of=/dev/sdf
      411+1 records in
      411+1 records out
      1725629563 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 149.961 s, 11.5 MB/s
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      Inspecting the device now shows the following:



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdf

      Disk /dev/sdf: 31.9 GB, 31914983424 bytes
      64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 30436 cylinders
      Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
      Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

      Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
      /dev/sdf1 5 46 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
      Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      /dev/sdf2 47 1646 1638081 83 Linux
      Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.

      [Michael@devserver ~]$ lsblk -f /dev/sdf
      NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT
      sdf
      ├─sdf1
      ├─sdf2
      ├─sdf5
      ├─sdf6
      └─sdf7
      [Michael@devserver ~]$ cat /proc/partitions | grep sdf
      8 80 31166976 sdf
      8 81 1243951 sdf1
      8 82 1 sdf2
      8 85 32767 sdf5
      8 86 67584 sdf6
      8 87 29815296 sdf7
      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sdf*
      /dev/sdf1: LABEL="boot" UUID="109A-9113" TYPE="vfat"
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      Why do partitions sdf5, sdf6, and sdf7 still exist? Should they be removed, and if so, how?







      share|improve this question












      I downloaded a jessie raspbian image and it shows two partitions.



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ fdisk -l 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img
      You must set cylinders.
      You can do this from the extra functions menu.

      Disk 2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img: 0 MB, 0 bytes
      255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 0 cylinders
      Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
      Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

      Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
      2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img1 1 6 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
      Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img2 6 210 1638081 83 Linux
      Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      I copied the image to a SD which had previously been used (sorry, I don't have the fdisk output before copying the image):



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo dd bs=4M if=2017-07-05-raspbian-jessie-lite.img of=/dev/sdf
      411+1 records in
      411+1 records out
      1725629563 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 149.961 s, 11.5 MB/s
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      Inspecting the device now shows the following:



      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdf

      Disk /dev/sdf: 31.9 GB, 31914983424 bytes
      64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 30436 cylinders
      Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes
      Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
      Disk identifier: 0xa8790229

      Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
      /dev/sdf1 5 46 42702+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
      Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
      /dev/sdf2 47 1646 1638081 83 Linux
      Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.

      [Michael@devserver ~]$ lsblk -f /dev/sdf
      NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT
      sdf
      ├─sdf1
      ├─sdf2
      ├─sdf5
      ├─sdf6
      └─sdf7
      [Michael@devserver ~]$ cat /proc/partitions | grep sdf
      8 80 31166976 sdf
      8 81 1243951 sdf1
      8 82 1 sdf2
      8 85 32767 sdf5
      8 86 67584 sdf6
      8 87 29815296 sdf7
      [Michael@devserver ~]$ sudo blkid /dev/sdf*
      /dev/sdf1: LABEL="boot" UUID="109A-9113" TYPE="vfat"
      [Michael@devserver ~]$


      Why do partitions sdf5, sdf6, and sdf7 still exist? Should they be removed, and if so, how?









      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Dec 25 '17 at 14:18









      user1032531

      518621




      518621




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          After copying the image, did you run partprobe /dev/sdf or eject & re-insert the card? If you didn't, the kernel might be still using the old partition table for the card.



          When you overwrite an entire disk/SD card, you'll need to tell the kernel that it should re-read the partition table. partprobe is the easiest command for doing it.






          share|improve this answer




















          • No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
            – user1032531
            Dec 25 '17 at 14:54










          • Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
            – telcoM
            Dec 25 '17 at 15:25










          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: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f412966%2fshould-unused-partitions-be-removed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          down vote













          After copying the image, did you run partprobe /dev/sdf or eject & re-insert the card? If you didn't, the kernel might be still using the old partition table for the card.



          When you overwrite an entire disk/SD card, you'll need to tell the kernel that it should re-read the partition table. partprobe is the easiest command for doing it.






          share|improve this answer




















          • No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
            – user1032531
            Dec 25 '17 at 14:54










          • Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
            – telcoM
            Dec 25 '17 at 15:25














          up vote
          3
          down vote













          After copying the image, did you run partprobe /dev/sdf or eject & re-insert the card? If you didn't, the kernel might be still using the old partition table for the card.



          When you overwrite an entire disk/SD card, you'll need to tell the kernel that it should re-read the partition table. partprobe is the easiest command for doing it.






          share|improve this answer




















          • No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
            – user1032531
            Dec 25 '17 at 14:54










          • Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
            – telcoM
            Dec 25 '17 at 15:25












          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          After copying the image, did you run partprobe /dev/sdf or eject & re-insert the card? If you didn't, the kernel might be still using the old partition table for the card.



          When you overwrite an entire disk/SD card, you'll need to tell the kernel that it should re-read the partition table. partprobe is the easiest command for doing it.






          share|improve this answer












          After copying the image, did you run partprobe /dev/sdf or eject & re-insert the card? If you didn't, the kernel might be still using the old partition table for the card.



          When you overwrite an entire disk/SD card, you'll need to tell the kernel that it should re-read the partition table. partprobe is the easiest command for doing it.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 25 '17 at 14:43









          telcoM

          10.8k11232




          10.8k11232











          • No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
            – user1032531
            Dec 25 '17 at 14:54










          • Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
            – telcoM
            Dec 25 '17 at 15:25
















          • No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
            – user1032531
            Dec 25 '17 at 14:54










          • Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
            – telcoM
            Dec 25 '17 at 15:25















          No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
          – user1032531
          Dec 25 '17 at 14:54




          No, I did not run partprobe /dev/sdf, but I did eject & re-insert the card. Looking at man partprobe, it appears that it is just informing the operating system of any partition changes, but doesn't actually change the device, true? As such, I would expect re-mounting the device will do the same thing, true?
          – user1032531
          Dec 25 '17 at 14:54












          Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
          – telcoM
          Dec 25 '17 at 15:25




          Ejecting and re-inserting the card might refresh the partition table only if the reader can detect that the card has been removed. Not all card readers can do that. In your fdisk output, the image file has no extended partition, so partition numbers sdf5 and above should not be possible. On the other hand, the presence of a small VFAT partition at the beginning suggests the image might have some sort of MBR/GPT hybrid partitioning, and your fdisk might only show the MBR side of the story, while /proc/partitions could be showing GPT.
          – telcoM
          Dec 25 '17 at 15:25












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f412966%2fshould-unused-partitions-be-removed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          Peggy Mitchell

          Palaiologos

          The Forum (Inglewood, California)