| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
<SNIP> |
| 3 |
> The recent thread about the new disks with 1024-byte sectors has me |
| 4 |
> even more confused. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
<hehe> Very sorry. ;-) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> IIUC the new disks *do* care (at least) about where a partition |
| 10 |
> begins relative to it's own 1024-byte hardware sectors, and that |
| 11 |
> part makes perfect sense. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And that is really the important point from that thread. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But, to me, that still leaves the "cylinder" as a completely useless |
| 17 |
> fiction that needs to join MSDOS in the scrap heap of history. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I believe you're correct. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Am I right to separate the 1024-byte sector problem from "cylinders" |
| 23 |
> as being two entirely different and orthogonal ideas? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes. Cylinders do exist on the disk but they are not something to be |
| 26 |
used anymore. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Is there really any need for the "cylinder" these days? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No, not as I understand it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
There may be some bits of software that suggest they can use them, but |
| 34 |
I think with the advent of LBA directly addressing CHS is now retired |
| 35 |
with only sector addressing being important due to the way the data is |
| 36 |
physically placed on the drive. Who cares what cylinder it's on, and |
| 37 |
who cares which head is getting the data? It doesn't matter to us |
| 38 |
users... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Cheers, |
| 41 |
Mark |
Archives