Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...

From	Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...
Date	2020-09-09 19:10 +0200
Message-ID	<ANbLz-3qc-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <AMP8n-6cx-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <AMSzg-8r6-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <AMTEZ-Cd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANa37-2lM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ANb8R-2XR-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Thread

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

csiph-web