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
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
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,
: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
