| 1 |
Grant writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is something other |
| 4 |
> > than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some higher density |
| 5 |
> > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector boundary or they |
| 6 |
> > will perform badly. There isn't an actually performance need to |
| 7 |
> > actually start on 2048 but the fdisk-type developer folks are doing |
| 8 |
> > that to be more compatible with newer Windows installations. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> All my drives says this from fdisk: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes |
| 13 |
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes |
| 14 |
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Neither fdisk nor hdparm seem to get the correct sector size, at least |
| 17 |
not always. That's what I read somewhere (and not only once), and it's |
| 18 |
true for my own 2TB drive which I know to have a 4K sector size. I'd say |
| 19 |
you have to look up the specs on the vendor's web size to be sure. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> So it doesn't matter where the first partition starts? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you have 4K sectors (and not a Seagate drive with SmartAlign [*]), it |
| 24 |
does. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
BTW, here's some benchmarks I just stumbled upon: |
| 27 |
http://hothardware.com/Articles/WDs-1TB-Caviar-Green-w-Advanced-Format-Windows-XP-Users-Pay-Attention/?page=2 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[*] I don't want to sound like I'm advertising for Seagate here, but at |
| 30 |
least it seems that with SmartAlign the performance impact will be |
| 31 |
much less, so it might not be worth the trouble of re-partitioning drives |
| 32 |
that are already being used. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Wonko |
Archives