From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4548138350 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 08:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33097E0AC0; Sat, 2 May 2020 08:39:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD2E6E0874 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 08:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D615F160062 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 10:39:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1588408753; bh=nFdxsba2qdxXMwLjkSpQ/aqi4NokRHBIxnuSYqwqx1k=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qytHKnL1P0TXCoYcr8V/NRmicMa/ruf50i7oMhMW890uR4J76zPimHrLCmbR7d8/C OKQXg8GDFIJ0so1ZleCHjo4GrGEVWogCDaFkWQIypdrGWctLr7kjYrUBi65TiZmzqL 7NJk9qk7Xr82XDVhnXgzn1CRMT9Uw301yiOQGq9bP4M8hkgbKdXil0hGRjUxqVvJKP +9196CHWUvEyhRyeWL1Zu1eIrH/tYZtaonR89ilt630vT4o0EClKXZX0TtET5NGtFo 9ObBfDEoODqThvZYq2Ou4kueyZKEcbTflc46H8yOwdr9YZ2fTlSxE/m/fQvFHv3qVn MuqV3dh/OYQfg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 49DjG91dBvz6tmZ for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 10:39:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 10:39:12 +0200 From: tuxic@posteo.de To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Trouble with backup harddisks Message-ID: <20200502083912.yhf6zu3kxoixwcjy@solfire> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200430093217.efprkpt4kbvir7nr@solfire> <20200501071810.h6qs7kgewwtbytqd@solfire> <2530524.mvXUDI8C0e@peak> <20200502020305.bvnxxt2egw6evx6d@solfire> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: b6872fef-b6bd-4ead-bc5d-a44f0302d322 X-Archives-Hash: 4e27c4230d6673a663a38012b85a1ae9 On 05/02 09:49, Andrea Conti wrote: > > I think, I feel better if I repartitioning/reformat both drives, > > though. > > It's not necessary, but if it makes you feel better by all means do so. > > > *GPT/MBR > > From a discussion based on a "GPT or MBR for my system drive" in > > conjunction with UEFI it was said, that GPT is more modern and > > save. > > > More modern I concur. For the rest it's mainly about features: >2TB partitions and way more metadata, plus not having to bother with CHS values which make no sense in today's drives. > And being able to define >4 partitions without littering the disk with extended boot records, which is probably the only thing I'd call "safer". > > My point was that none of this is relevant in an external drive which is under 1TB and will only hold a single partition starting at sector 1 and spanning the rest of the disk. > A system drive, especially if booting from UEFI is a different case for which GPT absolutely makes sense. > Ok, the other way around: Does GPT hurt more than MBT on a external HD used for backup puporses (no boot), has 1T and 1 partion of that size? > > My question was meant not so much as "MBR or GPT?" > > but more whether there are some variants of GPT (with > > protected MBR for example -- which was completly new to me), > > which I should use or avoid. > > There are really no "variants" of GPT. The protective MBR is only there to make all space in the disk look allocated to MBR partitioning tools that are not GPT-aware, and is automatically written for you by all GPT partitioning tools. > > In addition to the opaque entry of type 0xee, this MBR can also contain entries pointing to at least some of the actual partitions; this is called a 'hybrid' MBR and allows MBR-only access to partitions that are within the limits of MBR addressing (start and end sector <2TB). These are only useful in very specific cases an I would consider them a hack more than a solution; while gpt-fdisk has some support for creating hybrid MBRs (don't know about fdisk), you won't get one unless you specifically ask for it. >: Thanks of the information! :) > > But: Are rescue systems for USB-stick more UEFI/GPT aware nowadays > > or "traditionally" based on MBR/BIOS-boot? > > I think that anything that's not ancient will have tools and kernel support for both MBR and GPT, and will boot fine in both BIOS and UEFI modes. > > > One thing I found is really handy: An USB-stick with an rEfind > > installation. As long as your PC supports UEFI (or can switched to it) > > rEfind is able to boot "everything" without prior configuration. > > You can probably do the same with GRUB2, albeit in a way less user-friendly fashion :) > But why do you consider the ability to boot anything but the rescue system itself important in a rescue system? Recently a BIOS update deleted all UEFI entries and the system no longer boots. With rEfind from a USBstick I was able to boot the sustem nonetheless and the reinstallation of grub solves the problem. Task accomplished! :) > > > > Some rescue-system which really shines and with which you have made good > > experiences? > > My usual go-to is SystemRescueCD (the old 5.x gentoo-based one). > > andrea Thanks for the info, Andrea! Cheers! Meino