fdisk -l and lsblk - how to compare these two commands?

[thedhubs]

Hello and good morning dear community,

So from time to time I'm on the console more or less.

And if you don't always use it - if you're not at home every day - then questions keep coming up - which an experienced Linux user probably never comes up with.

In any case, the question arises for me - how to compare lsblk and fdisk -l - how and what possible errors can arise when using them.

Background: When comparing lsblk and fdisk -l, I sometimes wondered which was better and more suitable

hmmm - I think that lsblk is actually better suited for a quick, clear display
With lsblk I get the data of the contents on the drive with their structure, including mount points and logical volumes.

Seen this way, I find lsblk a bit easier – more readable and clearer

In my opinion, lsblk shows a tree-like structure showing the disk, partitions, partition types, volume groups and logical volumes. (while fdisk -l (disk) only shows the partition and partition type present on the disk.... hmmm - if it is an MBR style disk.)

How do you see that!?

I'm looking forward to hearing from you

cheers

 

update:

 

btw: i have found - with some research  a thread that might help here:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67124677/why-fdisk-and-lsblk-show-different-partition-size

what do you think!?

 

[Mindovermaster Global Moderator]

Well, it's the same with comparing top to htop. Or GIMP to Krita.

They give out the same info/usage.

Saying something is "best" doesn't mean it's best for the next person.

And showing different partition sizes, right in that link:

"lsblk shows size in IEC units (GiB, MiB, etc). A gibibyte (GiB) is larger than a gigabyte (GB)
fdisk shows size in SI (GB, MB, etc)."

 

[WITHOUT-ME]

same