| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:41:09 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Besides that, it's not so easy to do the alignment, at least when using |
| 4 |
> LVM. I read that LVM adds 192K header information, so even if you align |
| 5 |
> the partition start to an erasable block size of 512K, the actual |
| 6 |
> content is not aligned. See [*] for information how to overcome this. |
| 7 |
> That is, if you believe the alignment to erasable blocks is important, |
| 8 |
> personally I do not know what to think now. It wouldn't hurt, so why |
| 9 |
> not apply it, but it seems like snake oil to me now. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Wonko |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> http://tytso.livejournal.com/2009/02/20/ |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think that may be out of date. I read that but then found somewhere |
| 16 |
that LVM now uses MiB alignment. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
When there's a will, I want to be in it. |
Archives