On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:50:12 +0100 > Timothy Murphy <gayle...@eircom.net> wrote: > > > Does this matter? > > If so, what can you do about it? > > I get it after partitioning with fdisk, > > choosing partitions of size 50GB, etc. > > > > Is it really better to give the block count? > > Traditional boot loader stuff and BIOS depends on cylinder counts but > modern systems don't really care so it's no longer that important. It's > probably a good idea to keep any bootable partition cylinder aligned just > in case. > > > Incidentally, I notice that lshal takes a block as 512B, > > while fdisk has 1kB blocks. > > The physical block size of a traditional hard disk is 512 bytes and each > block is fixed that size. > > The block size used by ext2/3 is usually 1K or 4K and maps to a set of > adjacent hard disk blocks. > > Various tools report 1K blocks. > > In truth it's even more complicated than that nowdays > > Firstly - drives haven't truely had a heads/cylinders/sectors geometry > model for years, they fake a geometry for compatibility with old OS. > > Seocndly the physical block size of many modern drives is 4K or so and > they fake 512 byte sectors. The OS partitioning tools also try to align > things on the boundary of a 'real' sector so that a 4K linux ext3 block > maps to a real 4K disk block in order to get the best performance. > would you say then, that best practise would be to let anaconda create the /boot, / and other partitions? fdisk wouldn't align properly right?
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines