Talk:GUID Partition Table
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GUID Partition Table article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Computing: Software C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GUID Partition Table article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
New version created by Scorpiuss
I've created a new version of the GPT page. The fundamentals are all there. Could use a chart of the things represented at each bit position. Microsoft's got a nice one on the external link indicated (which, by the way, is a great source).
-Scorpiuss, Aug 26 2005, 13:25 GMT
EFI System partition GUID contradiction
The GUID for an EFISys partition under the Partition Entries section is different than the one in the list of GUIDs. On the MS page linked at the bottom, the one given in the Partition Entries section is given.
-Scorpiuss
Error in GPT disk layout figure
I have been trying to understand the GPT disk layout. From reading the UEFI spec and other pages, my impression is that the secondary (alternate) GPT header is located in the last addressable block on the disk. However, the figure (GUID Partition Table Scheme) is not consistent. The caption says that -1 is the last addressable block, but following the same graphical logic as used at the top of the figure the figure indicates that the secondary GPT header starts at -2 and ends at -1, i.e., it indicates that that the secondary GPT header is located at the second addressable block from the end, which should be wrong.
Am I right in this? Who has made the figure and how can we modify it?
- this is indeed misleading. the backup GPT header is in the very last LBA. nothing follows it. The figure must be fixed. I'll see if I can fix it. --Crackwitz (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I meditated on this briefly. The alignment of the text relative to the dashed lines can be misleading. It was probably intended to be relative to blocks. "LBA-1" is beside the last block. It's not meant to label the dashed line. --Crackwitz (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I made some edits: https://gist.github.com/crackwitz/e492e43cbf28d4a3877fe6108f99e6fa (vertically aligned the labels, added/removed some labels, removed some dividers) If anyone knows how to replace/overwrite a file in here, feel free to do it.--Crackwitz (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, had to go to Wikimedia Commons to find the feature. It's done.--Crackwitz (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Limitations vs MBR
I was wondering if perhaps this talk topic title should be an included section in the article? I know that "technically" GPT does not have any of the limitations that MBR does, but in certain instances a GPT-partitioned disk is not feasible. For example, some built-in Windows (7 thru 10) backup features do not support GPT disks. I can't quite remember for sure, but I seem to recall running into issues with restoring from a Win7 system image which was located on a GPT disk. I believe File History also does not support GPT disks. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts/experiences are.. thanks. -Jchap1590 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- no one has anything to say, for or against, about this being mentioned in the article? -Jchap1590 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)