Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #226795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-09-08 23:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 on this page of 22 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-08 22:40 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 23:50 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-09 00:50 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 17:10 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-10 03:30 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 08:10 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 18:50 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 00:40 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:10 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 06:20 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 01:20 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:50 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 22:10 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 17:20 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 18:30 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 19:10 +0200
Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-09-08 23:10 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-09 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... |
| Message-ID | <ANbLz-3qc-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226833 |
David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > On Wed 09 Sep 2020 at 08:53:20 (-0600), Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> rhkramer@gmail.com writes: >> > On Tuesday, September 08, 2020 04:39:05 PM David Christensen wrote: >> >> Neither the string "2 MiB" nor the string "2 M" appear on page you have >> >> cited. >> > >> > That is correct, that's is what I have not found on that page. >> > >> >> Please provide a URL that advocates "start the first partition at 2 MIB" >> > >> > Maybe I misinterpreted what David Wright said in an email >> > responding to one of >> > my questions back in June. >> > >> > <quote> >> > Subject: Re: Advice on encrypted filesystem >> > Date: Friday, June 26, 2020, 09:25:49 AM >> > From: David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> >> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> > >> > ---< snip >--- >> > >> > If encrypting an entire disk, scramble the disk first, then partition. >> > If only encrypting a partition, partition the disk first. >> > *Alignments should be at least 2M (4096 x 512B sectors).* >> > Scramble any sensitive pre-existing contents: >> > </quote> >> > >> > I took that to mean that the first partition should start at 2 MiB. >> >> That doesn't follow -- 0 is 2 MiB-aligned (it's also aligned on whatever >> other size boundary you care to name, of course). > > Care to explain how you align the first partition with the start of the disk? Ah, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... |
| Message-ID | <AMT2i-oj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #226795 |
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:53:00PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: >Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes >that leaves room for whatever may need to be at the beginning of the disk >(like maybe the MBR, or LILO, or ???)? The current basic default is 1MByte. This is on a 512byte boundary, a 4kbyte boundary, and is relatively aligned with SSD erase blocks (typically 4MB or 16MB). It also is (IIRC) the windows default, so it's more likely that drive manufactuers have tested/optimized for that value than for any other. The default may be different in some cases, if the drive suggests a different alignment value. (E.g., on a RAID volume.) There's also simply no reason to choose a smaller value on a modern disk.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web