| 1 |
On Samstag 27 Februar 2010, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> There's been some talk here recently about partitions versus cylinder |
| 3 |
> boundaries, and when or even if they need to line up properly. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I'm confused. For many years now I've ignored "cylinders" completely |
| 6 |
> because I've read that modern disks are addressed by sector number only, |
| 7 |
> and disks don't know or care about cylinders. The "cylinder" seems to |
| 8 |
> be a fiction that sticks around like a drunk who refuses to leave when |
| 9 |
> the party is over. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The recent thread about the new disks with 1024-byte sectors has me |
| 12 |
> even more confused. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> IIUC the new disks *do* care (at least) about where a partition |
| 15 |
> begins relative to it's own 1024-byte hardware sectors, and that |
| 16 |
> part makes perfect sense. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But, to me, that still leaves the "cylinder" as a completely useless |
| 19 |
> fiction that needs to join MSDOS in the scrap heap of history. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Am I right to separate the 1024-byte sector problem from "cylinders" |
| 22 |
> as being two entirely different and orthogonal ideas? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Is there really any need for the "cylinder" these days? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Happy Friday :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
no. Until you have to beat fdisk into submission. Yes, cylinders are |
| 29 |
anachronistic crap. Sadly a lot of tools (and the kernel) are still infected. |
Archives