gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024
Edho P Arief
edhoprima at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 07:22:39 UTC 2010
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Dan Langille <dan at langille.org> wrote:
>> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
>> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
>> GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
>> 50 110.5 81.0 112.8 15.0 62.8 9.0 72.9 48.5 139.7 9.5 144 0.9
>> Here, the results aren't much better either... am I not aligning this
>> partition correctly? Missing something else? Or... are they both 4K block
> The alignment doesn't apply to all drives, just the 4k WD's and some ssd's.
> If they were misaligned, you would see a large difference in the tests. A
> few points one way or other in these is largely meaningless.
> That being said, if I were you I would set -b 2048(1 MB) as the default, the
> amount of space wasted is trivial and your partition will always be
> aligned. People following your tutorials may have a variety of different
> drives and that setting is safe for all.
shouldn't it start at 2049? Starting at 2048 means it starts at 2048th
logical block which is 512 bytes off from physical block, doesn't it?
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
More information about the freebsd-stable