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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #187322

Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed 27 Sep 2017 at 11:32:31 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 September 2017 09:09:26 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> 
> > Le 27/09/2017 à 14:42, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > > [ 2404.664052] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 1953525167 512-byte logical blocks:
> > > (1.00 TB/932 GiB)
> > > [ 2404.676277] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 2048-byte physical blocks
> > >
> > > But I've now spent several hours trying to put the 1st of 3
> > > partitions on it with figures that satisfy parted's align-check,
> > > including calculation of values that result in mod(2048)=0. Nothing
> > > seems to satisfy parted.
> >
> > Can you elaborate ? You description is vague, and we cannot see what's
> > on your screen.
> >
> > Don't bother with alignment. Modern partitioners' default alignement
> > is suitable for all drives.
> 
> 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.
> 
> You said you can't see, so here's an attempt to use byte values that are 
> all mod(2048)=0
> 
> root@rock64:~# parted /dev/sda
> GNU Parted 3.2
> Using /dev/sda
> Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
> (parted) print                                                            
> Model: Seagate BUP Slim BK (scsi)
> Disk /dev/sda: 1000GB
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
> Partition Table: msdos
> Disk Flags: 
> 
> Number  Start  End  Size  Type  File system  Flags
> 
> (parted) mkpart primary fat32                                             
> Start? 163,840B                                                           
> End? 167,772,160B                                                         
> Error: The maximum head value is 254.
> 
> WTH? I didn't tell it heads, I gave it bytes and each value was a power 
> of 2 multiple of 2048, which should have made a fat32 partition of 
> around 167 megabytes.
> 
>    
> So what sort of figures does it need to be happy?

Um, numbers without commas in them (which is locale-sensitive anyway).
I've seen (and myself put) commas in output, but never in input.

And at the _very_ least use sectors, not bytes.

Cheers,
David.

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