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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #187320

Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Gene Heskett's parted wrote:
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B

Wasn't that 2048 bytes per physical sector, last time ?


> 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.

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

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