| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Hi Willie, |
| 5 |
>> OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me |
| 6 |
>> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using |
| 7 |
>> default values it had the starting sector was 63 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Same here. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> - probably about the worst value it could be. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Hm.... what about those first 62 sectors? |
| 14 |
> I bought this 500GB drive for my laptop recently and did a fresh partitioning |
| 15 |
> scheme on it, and then rsynced the filesystems of the old, smaller drive onto |
| 16 |
> it. The first two partitions are ntfs, but I believe they also use cluster |
| 17 |
> sizes of 4k by default. So technically I could repartition everything and |
| 18 |
> then restore the contents from my backup drive. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And indeed my system becomes very sluggish when I do some HDD shuffling. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> As a test I blew away that partition and |
| 23 |
>> created a new one starting at 64 instead and the untar results are |
| 24 |
>> vastly improved - down to roughly 20 seconds from 8-10 minutes. That's |
| 25 |
>> roughly twice as fast as the old 120GB SATA2 drive I was using to test |
| 26 |
>> the system out while I debugged this issue. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Though the result justifies your decision, I would have though one has to |
| 29 |
> start at 65, unless the disk starts counting its sectors at 0. |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' |
| 32 |
> Programmers don’t die, they GOSUB without RETURN. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Good question. I don't know where it starts counting but 63 seems to |
| 36 |
be the first one you can use on any blank drive I've looked at so far. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdisk will still tell |
| 41 |
you that you can use 63 until you use up all your primary partitions. |
| 42 |
It used to be easier to put additional partitions on when it gave you |
| 43 |
the next sector you could use after the one you just added.. Now I'm |
| 44 |
finding that I need to write things down and figure it out more |
| 45 |
carefully outside of fdisk. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
2) When I do something like +60G fdisk chooses the final sector, but |
| 48 |
it seems that it doesn't end 1 sector before something divisible by 8, |
| 49 |
so again, once the new partition is in I need to do more calculations |
| 50 |
to find where then next one will go. Probably better to decide what |
| 51 |
you want for an end and make sure that the next sector is divisible by |
| 52 |
8. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
3) When I put in an extended partition I put the start of it at |
| 55 |
something divisible by 8. When I went to add a logical partition |
| 56 |
inside of that I found that there was some strange number of sectors |
| 57 |
dedicated to the extended partition itself and I had to waste a few |
| 58 |
more sectors getting the logical partitions divisible by 8. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
4) Everything I've done so far leave me with messages about partition |
| 61 |
1 not ending on a cylinder boundary. Googling on that one says don't |
| 62 |
worry about it. I don't know... |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
So, it works - the new partitions are fast but it's a bit of work |
| 65 |
getting them in place. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
- Mark |
Archives