2015-10-07 1:44 GMT+08:00 Mikael <mikael.tr...@gmail.com>: > > Ah sure. > > Perhaps I misunderstood the level of "foolproofness" that the disklabel > tool's autogenerated default value was intended to give - > > Just curious, now that structural things like this are at stake (i.e. some > user making a seemingly reasonable presumption based on the "UI" should > give you partitions where you can really have completely > user-defined/custom stuff based on an expectation that the autogenerated > values guarantee non-overlapping with other partitions or the disk > partition structure itself i.e. the disklabel), what's the motivation for > not increasing the disklabel tool's minimum autogenerated offset value from > 64 to 80? > > The tradeoff would be that the world would lose 8KB per disk, and win the > absence of needing to debug a complete disk crash, that I just underwent. >
In all cases, as long as *not* having any partition covering any of the 16 sectors #64 to #79 won't break anything, I feel this is clear & thanks for clarifying!
