From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-135862-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1S4IA8-0003U1-RM
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:36:14 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02336E0959;
	Sun,  4 Mar 2012 20:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx.virtyou.com (mx.virtyou.com [178.33.32.244])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AEBE086C
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  4 Mar 2012 20:34:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from weird.wonkology.org (xdsl-78-35-180-236.netcologne.de [78.35.180.236])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by mx.virtyou.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB01DDC04D
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  4 Mar 2012 21:34:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 21:34:47 +0100
From: Alex Schuster <wonko@wonkology.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on a Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook
Message-ID: <20120304213447.75fa14c4@weird.wonkology.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0CFw2Z5=FMXgrxRo5bbO4ewj4xo4Lf8o4uXUdutvyvbc_DrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN0CFw23QLu55prsTZw9DQ1ig+zayqY9FuU9DTjRLWyW=Zuk8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<jirjnk$prk$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAN0CFw22BWyMOXGOwGgMZTj0kicZniuSFiE95NNfj4fZgcH7-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN0CFw0+wo6kUzPv7FMzU+DCi+qNW30gSZX7z8NuoxbfZro60A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA2qdGUaNJDKy+5m2AEyiTtOrCODdCm2oTPk1n6p3KiLb5J1Fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTuDKrcc4kuQmOj98jGkEHPnhAQmoWuFgPZFYUP1xLG2j5mWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN0CFw2Z5=FMXgrxRo5bbO4ewj4xo4Lf8o4uXUdutvyvbc_DrA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 181ace90-cd28-4037-a6c7-43a58bbddcf0
X-Archives-Hash: fdd8a574ac9c30fdacdd6b14e98b9f97

Grant writes:

> Just to confirm, starting at block 2048 is OK?

Yes, if it's divisible by 8, it's okay. That's because 512 * 8 = 4096, so
every 8th 512-byte block starts on a 4096 block boundary.

Now I have a related question: My new seagate Barracuda
Green 2TB ST2000DL003-9VT166 drive has 4096 bytes per sector, but uses
something that is called SmartAlign(TM) [*]. Seagate says that there are
no performance impacts even when the partitions are misaligned. This
would be good, because I completely forgot about this when creating
partitions, and I would like to keep it as it is now. Has anyone heard
about this? Can I trust Seagate that what they say is correct?

[*] www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/de.../mb6101_smartalign_technology_faq.pdf 

	Wonko