Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #187328

Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday 27 September 2017 12:03:12 Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Gene Heskett's parted wrote:
> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
>
> Wasn't that 2048 bytes per physical sector, last time ?

yes, thats the figures quote elsewhere here, which came from the 
discovery stanza in dmesg when I plugged it into a usb3 port on the 
rock64.  Thats a direct copy/paste from the rock64's screen.

One of the reasons I'm getting old & grey, can't be the almost 83 
years. ;-)
>
> > Start? 163,840B
> > End? 167,772,160B
> > Error: The maximum head value is 254.
> > WTH? I didn't tell it heads,
>
> I think it takes the commas for a CHS addrss and the "772" for heads.

I don't recall that from the manpage, must need to up the marigold dose 
which helps preserve a diabetics eyesight.
 
> See in
>   https://www.gnu.org/software/parted/manual/html_node/unit.html
> the example
>   (parted) unit chs print
>   Disk geometry for /dev/hda: 0,0,0 - 14946,225,62
>
> > So what sort of figures does it need to be happy?
>
> Without commas ?
>
> > (parted) mkpart primary fat32 8MiB 210MiB
> > Warning: The resulting partition is not properly aligned for best
> > performance.
>
> Show due human backbone and override the warning.
> It probably thinks of cylinders or maybe of the 32 MiB which fdisk
> reports as "optimal".
>
> > Looking at fdisks initial screen, it claims the physical sector is
> > 4096?
>
> That's what parted says above.
>
> > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 33553920 bytes
>
> 32 MiB ? I wonder what kind of i/o that would be.
>
> 1 MiB as partition start is modern tradition and said to be ok
> for about everything.
>
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> Thomas


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-27 14:50 +0200
  Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2017-09-27 15:10 +0200
    Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-09-27 15:40 +0200
    Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-27 17:40 +0200
      Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-09-27 18:10 +0200
        Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-27 19:30 +0200
          Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-09-27 21:20 +0200
      Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-27 18:40 +0200
      Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2017-09-27 19:30 +0200
        Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-27 19:40 +0200
  Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 19:40 +0200

csiph-web