g day
When comparing lsblk and fdisk -l, I sometimes wondered which was better and more suitable.
I think lsblk is more suitable for a quick, clear display - it shows the disk with its structure, including mount points and logical volumes.
I personally find lsblk a bit simpler - readable and clearer
In my opinion, lsblk shows a tree-like structure that shows the hard disk, partitions, partition types, volume groups and logical volumes,
(while fdisk -l (disk) only shows the partition and partition type that are present on the hard disk - hmmm - if it is an MBR-style hard disk.)
how you use the both commands!?
Where are the "risks" - and the benefits of the both
When comparing lsblk and fdisk -l, I sometimes wondered which was better and more suitable.
I think lsblk is more suitable for a quick, clear display - it shows the disk with its structure, including mount points and logical volumes.
I personally find lsblk a bit simpler - readable and clearer
In my opinion, lsblk shows a tree-like structure that shows the hard disk, partitions, partition types, volume groups and logical volumes,
(while fdisk -l (disk) only shows the partition and partition type that are present on the hard disk - hmmm - if it is an MBR-style hard disk.)
how you use the both commands!?
Where are the "risks" - and the benefits of the both