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 1S4NAA-0003I0-Vy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 01:56:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AB7AE09A7; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 01:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8638E099D for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 01:53:53 +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 1S4N7Z-002zRU-8o for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:53:53 +0700 Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so3651002vbb.40 for ; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pandu@poluan.info designates 10.52.17.82 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.17.82; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of pandu@poluan.info designates 10.52.17.82 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=pandu@poluan.info Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.17.82]) by 10.52.17.82 with SMTP id m18mr31424141vdd.89.1330912430684 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:53:50 -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 10.52.17.82 with SMTP id m18mr26928236vdd.89.1330912430670; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:53:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:53:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120304213447.75fa14c4@weird.wonkology.org> References: <20120304213447.75fa14c4@weird.wonkology.org> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:53:49 +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=bcaec50405d6a8418c04ba753278 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: 48c5670d-bc1c-41d2-8072-572096ec8adb X-Archives-Hash: 610eafc67f23c55b9b96a42fe09d9907 --bcaec50405d6a8418c04ba753278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 5, 2012 3:37 AM, "Alex Schuster" wrote: > > 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 > Your URL got munged there, I can't download the pdf. Rgds, --bcaec50405d6a8418c04ba753278 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 5, 2012 3:37 AM, "Alex Schuster" <wonko@wonkology.org> wrote:
>
> 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 =3D 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 a= re
> 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_techn= ology_faq.pdf
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Wonko
>

Your URL got munged there, I can't download the pdf.

Rgds,

--bcaec50405d6a8418c04ba753278--