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 ) id 1S4asu-0004wv-1g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:35:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A2E8E0710; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F3BE0671 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S4aqj-0000Ab-LC for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:33:25 +0700 Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so4302166vbb.40 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pandu@poluan.info designates 10.52.23.74 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.23.74; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of pandu@poluan.info designates 10.52.23.74 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=pandu@poluan.info Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.23.74]) by 10.52.23.74 with SMTP id k10mr36045497vdf.106.1330965200505 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.23.74 with SMTP id k10mr30797575vdf.106.1330965200491; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120305170057.7c47b2a4@weird.wonkology.org> References: <20120305170057.7c47b2a4@weird.wonkology.org> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:33:20 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on a Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9b58fbd61304ba817bd0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: d4521c1d-eb4f-4a90-b728-9815cc99e639 X-Archives-Hash: 98580fe329a1c47b8bda29d8291e72fb --20cf307c9b58fbd61304ba817bd0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 5, 2012 11:04 PM, "Alex Schuster" wrote: > > Grant writes: > > > > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is something other > > > than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some higher density > > > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector boundary or they > > > will perform badly. There isn't an actually performance need to > > > actually start on 2048 but the fdisk-type developer folks are doing > > > that to be more compatible with newer Windows installations. > > > > All my drives says this from fdisk: > > > > Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes > > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes > > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes > > Neither fdisk nor hdparm seem to get the correct sector size, at least > not always. That's what I read somewhere (and not only once), and it's > true for my own 2TB drive which I know to have a 4K sector size. I'd say > you have to look up the specs on the vendor's web size to be sure. > > > So it doesn't matter where the first partition starts? > > If you have 4K sectors (and not a Seagate drive with SmartAlign [*]), it > does. > > BTW, here's some benchmarks I just stumbled upon: > http://hothardware.com/Articles/WDs-1TB-Caviar-Green-w-Advanced-Format-Windows-XP-Users-Pay-Attention/?page=2 > > [*] I don't want to sound like I'm advertising for Seagate here, but at > least it seems that with SmartAlign the performance impact will be > much less, so it might not be worth the trouble of re-partitioning drives > that are already being used. > > Wonko > The problem with SmartAlign is that..*.* it's magic... once you run out of mana, you can kiss your data goodbye. In other words, I tried to find how it works, but Seagate seems to be mum; and that is ungood. Without knowing how exactly the technology works, how can we be sure that it won't blow up when encountering edge/corner cases? So, albeit nice (in the sense that one does not have to experience the headache in ensuring that partitions are properly aligned), I personally will stay away from magical things. Rgds, --20cf307c9b58fbd61304ba817bd0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 5, 2012 11:04 PM, "Alex Schuster" <wonko@wonkology.org> wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
> > > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is somet= hing other
> > > =C2=A0than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some = higher density
> > > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector bounda= ry or they
> > > will perform badly. There isn't an actually performance = need to
> > > actually start on 2048 but the fdisk-type developer folks ar= e doing
> > > that to be more compatible with newer Windows installations.=
> >
> > All my drives says this from fdisk:
> >
> > Units =3D sectors of 1 * 512 =3D 512 bytes
> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>
> Neither fdisk nor hdparm seem to get the correct sector size, at least=
> not always. That's what I read somewhere (and not only once), and = it's
> true for my own 2TB drive which I know to have a 4K sector size. I'= ;d say
> you have to look up the specs on the vendor's web size to be sure.=
>
> > So it doesn't matter where the first partition starts?
>
> If you have 4K sectors (and not a Seagate drive with SmartAlign [*]), = it
> does.
>
> BTW, here's some benchmarks I just stumbled upon:
> http://hothardware.co= m/Articles/WDs-1TB-Caviar-Green-w-Advanced-Format-Windows-XP-Users-Pay-Atte= ntion/?page=3D2
>
> [*] I don't want to sound like I'm advertising for Seagate her= e, but at
> least it seems that with SmartAlign the performance impact will be
> much less, so it might not be worth the trouble of re-partitioning dri= ves
> that are already being used.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Wonko
>

The problem with SmartAlign is that... it's magic... once you= run out of mana, you can kiss your data goodbye.

In other words, I tried to find how it works, but Seagate seems to be mu= m; and that is ungood. Without knowing how exactly the technology works, ho= w can we be sure that it won't blow up when encountering edge/corner ca= ses?

So, albeit nice (in the sense that one does not have to experience the h= eadache in ensuring that partitions are properly aligned), I personally wil= l stay away from magical things.

Rgds,

--20cf307c9b58fbd61304ba817bd0--