Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:28:13 -0400
- From: Gene Heskett <gheskett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: disk partitioners vs disk with 2048 byte phusical sectors
On Wednesday 27 September 2017 12:03:12 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Gene Heskett's parted wrote:
> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
> Wasn't that 2048 bytes per physical sector, last time ?
yes, thats the figures quote elsewhere here, which came from the
discovery stanza in dmesg when I plugged it into a usb3 port on the
rock64. Thats a direct copy/paste from the rock64's screen.
One of the reasons I'm getting old & grey, can't be the almost 83
> > 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.
I don't recall that from the manpage, must need to up the marigold dose
which helps preserve a diabetics eyesight.
> See in
> 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 :)
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>