Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:43:01 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove requirement of alignment to track from MBR scheme Message-ID: <4DDB5375.6050004@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9ED563AB-7B35-40F4-A33E-015317858401@bsdimp.com> References: <4DDA2F0B.2040203@yandex.ru> <D75B2856-D9D8-4BA3-BC54-8258610CEA06@xcllnt.net> <9ED563AB-7B35-40F4-A33E-015317858401@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 23/05/2011 20:38 Warner Losh said the following: > > On May 23, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> I think we've had enough rushed and ill thought-out changes going >> in already and I can see that not aligning MBR partitions on a track >> boundary is potentially perceived as a PITA violation. _PITA_ violation? :-) As to POLA - yeah, I can see people getting astonished that finally FreeBSD got its sh*t together and did the right thing, years after all other OSes (even Winddows) had done it. > I can understand only generating MBRs on a track boundary. No. E.g. I wanted to create a 4KB aligned MBR slice, but our tools insisted on using a 63 sector alignment. In fact, the value that I provided was silently rounded to the value that gpart thought was best for me. Really, if a user says to gpart "do whatever alignment you want", then I could see using geometry-based values, but I still think that we should not do that even in that case, I think we would be better off using some nice 2^N alignment. If a user says "use this alignment or slice start", then the tool should just shut up and do exactly what the user told it. This is _not_ just my 2 cents :-) -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DDB5375.6050004>