Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64

  • Thread starter Thread starter EdZ314
  • Start date Start date
E

EdZ314

Guest
Is there any reason that diskpar should *not* be used on Windows 2003 x64
servers? I did some testing of both diskpar and diskpart (updated for SP1)
and get different results when creating a partition which requires alignment.
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64

Hello EdZ314,

The differences are explained here:
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/08/10/408950.aspx

The main difference is that diskpar creates a partition in sectors (512byte),
and diskpart uses kilobytes. Scroll down to the examples form diskpar and
diskpart.

But i can not find anything about 2003 64bit

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Is there any reason that diskpar should *not* be used on Windows 2003
> x64 servers? I did some testing of both diskpar and diskpart (updated
> for SP1) and get different results when creating a partition which
> requires alignment.
>
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64

Thanks - I read that article too, which was excellent. My main concerns, and
reason for asking are (1) diskpar creates a partition type of 0x07 and
diskpart creates a partition type of 0x06, and (2) when I use diskpar in a
2003 x64 system (RTM) I see inconsistent results when attempting to set the
offset.

Regards, and thanks,
Ed Zielinski

"Meinolf Weber" wrote:

> Hello EdZ314,
>
> The differences are explained here:
> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/08/10/408950.aspx
>
> The main difference is that diskpar creates a partition in sectors (512byte),
> and diskpart uses kilobytes. Scroll down to the examples form diskpar and
> diskpart.
>
> But i can not find anything about 2003 64bit
>
> Best regards
>
> Meinolf Weber
> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
> no rights.
> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>
> > Is there any reason that diskpar should *not* be used on Windows 2003
> > x64 servers? I did some testing of both diskpar and diskpart (updated
> > for SP1) and get different results when creating a partition which
> > requires alignment.
> >
>
>
>
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64


"EdZ314" <EdZ314@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:11FD4A68-8095-4EAE-AE17-613F6B2CCB72@microsoft.com...
> Thanks - I read that article too, which was excellent. My main concerns,
and
> reason for asking are (1) diskpar creates a partition type of 0x07 and
> diskpart creates a partition type of 0x06, and (2) when I use diskpar in a
> 2003 x64 system (RTM) I see inconsistent results when attempting to set
the
> offset.

I have seen indeed the creation of type 0x06 on Windows 2003 as default
partition type. (in general, not only with diskpart)

However this type will be changed to 0x07 when formatting NTFS.

Other than that the default partition type is 0x06 (which we know will
change when formatting) what is the problem here ?




>
> Regards, and thanks,
> Ed Zielinski
>
> "Meinolf Weber" wrote:
>
> > Hello EdZ314,
> >
> > The differences are explained here:
> > http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/08/10/408950.aspx
> >
> > The main difference is that diskpar creates a partition in sectors
(512byte),
> > and diskpart uses kilobytes. Scroll down to the examples form diskpar
and
> > diskpart.
> >
> > But i can not find anything about 2003 64bit
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Meinolf Weber
> > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> > no rights.
> > ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
> > ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
> >
> > > Is there any reason that diskpar should *not* be used on Windows 2003
> > > x64 servers? I did some testing of both diskpar and diskpart (updated
> > > for SP1) and get different results when creating a partition which
> > > requires alignment.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64

In this particular case, I have tried using both diskpar (version 5.0.2085.1)
and diskpart (version 5.2.3790.3118) on a Windows 2003 x64 system (RTM) and
found that when diskpar was used to create a partition with an offset of 128
sectors, it did not work correctly. After rerunning diskpar -i to query the
settings on the same disk, it showed that a partition had been created (of
type 0x07), but the offset was zero, and the partition length looked odd.
When the same process was repeated with diskpart using align=64, it seemed to
work reliably. I have more details on the exact results and the type of
hardware involved if it would be helpful to post them.

Thx

"Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" wrote:

>
> "EdZ314" <EdZ314@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:11FD4A68-8095-4EAE-AE17-613F6B2CCB72@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks - I read that article too, which was excellent. My main concerns,
> and
> > reason for asking are (1) diskpar creates a partition type of 0x07 and
> > diskpart creates a partition type of 0x06, and (2) when I use diskpar in a
> > 2003 x64 system (RTM) I see inconsistent results when attempting to set
> the
> > offset.
>
> I have seen indeed the creation of type 0x06 on Windows 2003 as default
> partition type. (in general, not only with diskpart)
>
> However this type will be changed to 0x07 when formatting NTFS.
>
> Other than that the default partition type is 0x06 (which we know will
> change when formatting) what is the problem here ?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards, and thanks,
> > Ed Zielinski
> >
> > "Meinolf Weber" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello EdZ314,
> > >
> > > The differences are explained here:
> > > http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/08/10/408950.aspx
> > >
> > > The main difference is that diskpar creates a partition in sectors
> (512byte),
> > > and diskpart uses kilobytes. Scroll down to the examples form diskpar
> and
> > > diskpart.
> > >
> > > But i can not find anything about 2003 64bit
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Meinolf Weber
> > > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > > no rights.
> > > ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
> > > ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
> > >
> > > > Is there any reason that diskpar should *not* be used on Windows 2003
> > > > x64 servers? I did some testing of both diskpar and diskpart (updated
> > > > for SP1) and get different results when creating a partition which
> > > > requires alignment.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64


"EdZ314" <EdZ314@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:80629959-4461-43A0-BA14-21CABEFDE68B@microsoft.com...
> In this particular case, I have tried using both diskpar (version
5.0.2085.1)
> and diskpart (version 5.2.3790.3118) on a Windows 2003 x64 system (RTM)
and
> found that when diskpar was used to create a partition with an offset of
128
> sectors, it did not work correctly. After rerunning diskpar -i to query
the
> settings on the same disk, it showed that a partition had been created (of
> type 0x07), but the offset was zero, and the partition length looked odd.
> When the same process was repeated with diskpart using align=64, it seemed
to
> work reliably. I have more details on the exact results and the type of
> hardware involved if it would be helpful to post them.
>

So what you are saying is

1) a Windows 2000 tool (diskpar) on Windows 2003 is not correctly working
2) a Windows 2003 tool (diskpart) on Windows 2003 is correctly working

So, what can we help you with, other than stating to use the correct tool ?

rgds,
Edwin.
 
Re: Diskpar vs. Diskpart and Windows 2003 x64

Thanks for the reply and the acknowledgement - I hadn't seen anything before
indicating that there was any specific reason not to use diskpar on Windows
2003 x64. I would just like to make sure that others are aware that in some
cases, diskpar may not work correctly. Another concern that I wanted to raise
is that it appears (at least in my case) that when diskpar is used, it not
only doesn't work, but may result in disk corruption later. On a couple of
the disks on which diskpar was used, we experienced partition table
corruption, on on the ones on which diskpart was used, we have not.

Cheers,
Ed

"Edwin vMierlo [MVP]" wrote:

>
> "EdZ314" <EdZ314@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:80629959-4461-43A0-BA14-21CABEFDE68B@microsoft.com...
> > In this particular case, I have tried using both diskpar (version
> 5.0.2085.1)
> > and diskpart (version 5.2.3790.3118) on a Windows 2003 x64 system (RTM)
> and
> > found that when diskpar was used to create a partition with an offset of
> 128
> > sectors, it did not work correctly. After rerunning diskpar -i to query
> the
> > settings on the same disk, it showed that a partition had been created (of
> > type 0x07), but the offset was zero, and the partition length looked odd.
> > When the same process was repeated with diskpart using align=64, it seemed
> to
> > work reliably. I have more details on the exact results and the type of
> > hardware involved if it would be helpful to post them.
> >
>
> So what you are saying is
>
> 1) a Windows 2000 tool (diskpar) on Windows 2003 is not correctly working
> 2) a Windows 2003 tool (diskpart) on Windows 2003 is correctly working
>
> So, what can we help you with, other than stating to use the correct tool ?
>
> rgds,
> Edwin.
>
>
>
 
Back
Top