Richard Heldmann wrote: > Why are the devices listed as sda and not hda? The short answer is that Linux 2.6 is moving towards using a new subsystem called libata for SATA disks. It's a lot cleaner than the old IDE code (which should make it more stable in the long term), can support more of the new capabilities of SATA. Libata uses some of the SCSI framework, and gives disks sdx names[1]. http://lwn.net/Articles/44243/ is rather out-of-date now (it's over a year old, and a lot of work has been done since then), but is still a good explanation of the new subsystem. > Should I correct it and how? No. > Is the warning a problem? The warning (from sfdisk, based on the partition structure) is probably completely different, although there's the possibility that it's got confused by the SATA interface. I suspect that whatever first partitioned your disk did so in a slightly odd manner, and sfdisk is surprised by this. If it works, don't worry. James. [1] That's an oversimplification, but you do not need to hear about device majors, nodes, and standard naming policies. They don't affect this. -- E-mail address: james | Let He who Taketh the Plunge @westexe.demon.co.uk | Remember to Return it by Tuesday.
