Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:05:48 +0400 From: pluknet <pluknet@gmail.com> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sector size of 4096 bytes (not 512) Message-ID: <a31046fc0808260605y175973bnc0869a3c806de424@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <35461.1219736678@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <a31046fc0808260005m59fabe2fn723b3be68bb6803a@mail.gmail.com> <35461.1219736678@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/8/26 Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > In message <a31046fc0808260005m59fabe2fn723b3be68bb6803a@mail.gmail.com>, plukn > et writes: >>2008/8/26 Sten Daniel Soersdal <netslists@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Does anyone know if i might run into any surprises if my hdd has 4096 byte >>> sized sectors and not the regular 512, it is low-level formatted that way. > > [...] > >>You should not change the sector size, because it is value of the >>physical parameter on disc >>(typically it's 512 for magnetic discs and 4096 for optical discs), >>not whatever logical value. >>You should better check tuning(7)/tunefs(8) man pages if you want to >>tune up your system. > > This answer has nothing to do with the question asked, and is wrong in > just about every way it can be. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > I'm talking about on-disk sector-size, not about filesystem's block-size. wbr, pluknet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a31046fc0808260605y175973bnc0869a3c806de424>