Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #187331
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors |
| Date | 2017-09-27 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uuots-68f-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uujWO-2Bu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <uumBj-4YL-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <uuojM-63X-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wednesday 27 September 2017 13:25:06 Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:32:31AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >Oh? The last time I used fdisk I wound up with writes under 15 > >megs/second, and read of about 21 megs/second. Fixed it so it was > >aligned, and its now around 120 megs/second both ways. > > And that was presumably a very long time ago. Current tools just start > the first partition at a large power of two offset and alignment > issues consequently aren't a problem unless you work at it. (This was > mainly only an issue with old DOS-style partition tables that started > the first partition at 32256 bytes. The 1M first partition offset has > been the default in debian I think since wheezy.) > > Mike Stone Whatever I did do, seems to have worked, sfdisk to the rescue one could say. Its posted here in a previous post. Now I have to bring at least the swap online. 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
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