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 1S4K3T-00079F-7L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:37:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 469E8E09F2; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79864E09D6 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eaa1 with SMTP id 1so1261758eaa.40 for ; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of emailgrant@gmail.com designates 10.213.13.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.213.13.72; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of emailgrant@gmail.com designates 10.213.13.72 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=emailgrant@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=emailgrant@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.213.13.72]) by 10.213.13.72 with SMTP id b8mr1602301eba.180.1330900576567 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:36:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mkZZBESbuhTzC05WQmSJ2wRr4/ffZcpIBHed6JVCOog=; b=ny1Zv2Vi8g4KLak3hmf2zU4txsGXT8xd2vTVhyDovqbyNu+NzynmL7kjE/gL1M56ZO WZkX9+BSj8TqlvDArC7GZB+pDCaRA9i6x/I1d1hEGpvtKT9y8gkdVrumzyfWduyGs6zA IEkb02P1YtEowW2keLbayjJNWVZxYZVRR1xB4gk/+GcquG3EAtxTLsj4h53isV8leYG8 n7bx2pA3C8qYcpG5ldXN+Ht4XySHslMKfvlPTCuPpqatWB/MlSLuGSwKYfVgPweKwi01 D28dtClZ9mr7t+vg1i3zcm4Hv5E18BSLVhNTJuacIXFJ6wW7TlwAS2meR6HDKfzigmF0 OTEQ== 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 10.213.13.72 with SMTP id b8mr1215901eba.180.1330900576505; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.113.148 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 14:36:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120305000736.245b9497@khamul.example.com> References: <20120305000736.245b9497@khamul.example.com> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 14:36:16 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on a Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook From: Grant To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: c9942ce0-7758-4251-9191-8cd1bf305315 X-Archives-Hash: a07bcfb00148c6dd5954572d1e6caead >> >> [snip] >> >>>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even >> >>>> though I deleted all partitions. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7 >> >>> expects the first partition to start at sector 2048. >> >>> >> >>> You can force a lower number by toggling "DOS compatibility"; >> >>> this should let you start the first partition as low as sector 63. >> >>> >> >>> HOWEVER, make sure that all partitions begin at multiples of 8 >> >>> (e.g., 64, 72, 80, and so on); this will save you a lot of grief >> >>> if it happens that the hard disk you're using has 4KiB-sectors. >> >> >> >> I just looked up the start block for my other systems and they're >> >> all on 63. =A0Is performance impacted on all of these systems since >> >> they aren't started on 64? >> >> >> >> - Grant >> >> >> > >> > 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 =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 >> >> So it doesn't matter where the first partition starts? > > Correct. Those drives are all the same style as you've > been using for years. If partitions start at 63, that's just an msdos > convention. For reasons I've never understood, Windows liked to reserve > the first 32k for some purpose or other. So fdisk used to enforce a block 63 start point and now it enforces a 2048 start point? fdisk is the one doing this? - Grant