Matthew Dillon wrote:
Most of the arguments quoted are incorrect. The one about the ECC
length is correct, but the inter-sector gap argument doesn't apply
to most modern drives because they already do full-track reads and
writes, without gaps between sectors.
Yeah, I'm a bit p
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:17:00AM -0800, Ben Cadieux wrote:
> Anyone have an idea why Windows and Linux are using the same ID for
> their data partition?
What are you meaning? Linux partitions normally have an ID of 131,
Windows of 7 for NTFS or 11/12 (FAT). Extended partitions have an ID of
15,
Anyone have an idea why Windows and Linux are using the same ID for
their data partition? What's the point in having a much longer
partition type ID if we're going to be overlapping anyway? That
and...could we possibly find a worse way of storing it? "Note that
only the first three blocks are by
:I thought this quote was interesting. I'm wondering how much work will
:be involved for you guys to accommodate this proposed change:
Minimal work. UFS has no problem with a different sector size (unless
I broke something with recent commits, anyway). The kernel has no
problem wit
I thought this quote was interesting. I'm wondering how much work will
be involved for you guys to accommodate this proposed change:
=
An industry committee has recommended increasing the disk block sector
size from 512 bytes to 4096. IDEMA, the Int
