From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 24 06:43:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C10106566B for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 06:43:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9768FC08 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 06:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id JAA24427; Tue, 24 May 2011 09:43:03 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1QOlKY-0006aZ-5V; Tue, 24 May 2011 09:43:02 +0300 Message-ID: <4DDB5375.6050004@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:43:01 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110503 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh , Marcel Moolenaar References: <4DDA2F0B.2040203@yandex.ru> <9ED563AB-7B35-40F4-A33E-015317858401@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <9ED563AB-7B35-40F4-A33E-015317858401@bsdimp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove requirement of alignment to track from MBR scheme X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:43:21 -0000 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