On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2012 4:59 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>>
>>
>> All my drives says this from fdisk:
>>
>> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Grant writes:
>
>> > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is something other
>> > than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some higher density
>> > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector boundary or they
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:33:20 +0700
Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2012 11:04 PM, "Alex Schuster" wrote:
> >
> > Grant writes:
> >
> > > > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is
> > > > something other than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used
> > > > by some higher density dr
On Mar 5, 2012 11:04 PM, "Alex Schuster" wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
> > > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is something other
> > > than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some higher density
> > > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector boundary or they
Grant writes:
> > The performance is only impacted if the sector size is something other
> > than 512 bytes. The newer 4K sector size used by some higher density
> > drives requires that you start partitions on a sector boundary or they
> > will perform badly. There isn't an actually performance
Pandu Poluan writes:
> On Mar 5, 2012 3:37 AM, "Alex Schuster" wrote:
> > Now I have a related question: My new seagate Barracuda
> > Green 2TB ST2000DL003-9VT166 drive has 4096 bytes per sector, but uses
> > something that is called SmartAlign(TM) [*]. Seagate says that there
> > are no perform
On Mar 5, 2012 5:39 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>
>
> So fdisk used to enforce a block 63 start point and now it enforces a
> 2048 start point? fdisk is the one doing this?
>
> - Grant
>
Yes. Like I posted before (and explained in the article I linked), if you
turn off the compatibility mode, you can pus
On Mar 5, 2012 5:10 AM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote:
>
>
> Correct. Those drives are all the same style as you've
> been using for years. If partitions start at 63, that's just an msdos
> convention. For reasons I've never understood, Windows liked to reserve
> the first 32k for some purpose or other.
>
On Mar 5, 2012 4:59 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>
>
> All my drives says this from fdisk:
>
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>
> So it doesn't matter where the first partition starts?
>
Olde
On Mar 5, 2012 3:15 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >> HOWEVER, make sure that all partitions begin at multiples of 8 (e.g.,
64,
> >> 72, 80, and so on); this will save you a lot of grief if it happens
that the
> >> hard disk you're using has 4KiB-sectors. [1]
> >
> >
> >
> > From what I recall o
On Mar 5, 2012 3:37 AM, "Alex Schuster" wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
> > Just to confirm, starting at block 2048 is OK?
>
> Yes, if it's divisible by 8, it's okay. That's because 512 * 8 = 4096, so
> every 8th 512-byte block starts on a 4096 block boundary.
>
> Now I have a related question: My new
>> >> [snip]
>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even
>> though I deleted all partitions.
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7
>> >>> expects the first partition to start at sector 2048.
>> >>>
>> >>> You can force
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:56:23 -0800
Grant wrote:
> >> [snip]
> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even
> though I deleted all partitions.
>
> >>>
> >>> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7
> >>> expects the first partition to start at
>> [snip]
1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even though I
deleted all partitions.
>>>
>>> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7 expects
>>> the first partition to start at sector 2048.
>>>
>>> You can force a lower number by toggling
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Grant wrote:
> [snip]
>>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even though I
>>> deleted all partitions.
>>>
>>
>> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7 expects
>> the first partition to start at sector 2048.
>>
>> You
[snip]
>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even though I
>> deleted all partitions.
>>
>
> That's normal. It's a long story, but Windows Vista and Windows 7 expects
> the first partition to start at sector 2048.
>
> You can force a lower number by toggling "DOS compatibility"
Grant writes:
> Just to confirm, starting at block 2048 is OK?
Yes, if it's divisible by 8, it's okay. That's because 512 * 8 = 4096, so
every 8th 512-byte block starts on a 4096 block boundary.
Now I have a related question: My new seagate Barracuda
Green 2TB ST2000DL003-9VT166 drive has 4096 b
[snip]
>> HOWEVER, make sure that all partitions begin at multiples of 8 (e.g., 64,
>> 72, 80, and so on); this will save you a lot of grief if it happens that the
>> hard disk you're using has 4KiB-sectors. [1]
>
>
>
> From what I recall of looking at that toy's specs, it's running on an
> SSD, s
> [snip]
>>> I enabled some more kernel options under USB Network Adapters and it's
>>> working now. The install is about done but there were a few
>>> peculiarities:
>>>
>>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even though I
>>> deleted all partitions.
>>>
>>
>> That's normal.
[snip]
>> I enabled some more kernel options under USB Network Adapters and it's
>> working now. The install is about done but there were a few
>> peculiarities:
>>
>> 1. fdisk won't let me specify a start block before 2048 even though I
>> deleted all partitions.
>>
>
> That's normal. It's a long
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2012 12:54 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>>
>> >>> I just received the new Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook and I'm trying to
>> >>> install Gentoo but I can't get install-amd64-minimal-20120223.iso to
>> >>> boot via a USB key.
>> >>
>> >> Have you tes
Gah. I must be too tired; what I sent earlier was supposed to go another
list. Sorry for the mistake, folks.
Rgds,
On Mar 4, 2012 1:22 AM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote:
> Oh iya, satu lagi yang perlu dihindari: wifi AP nya HP ProCurve / HP
> Networking. Nggak stabil. (Tapi kalau switch Layer 2 dan Laye
Oh iya, satu lagi yang perlu dihindari: wifi AP nya HP ProCurve / HP
Networking. Nggak stabil. (Tapi kalau switch Layer 2 dan Layer 3 nya, HP
ProCurve highly recommended).
((Ini berdasarkan hasil pengalaman saya di kantor yang sekarang.))
Rgds,
On Mar 4, 2012 1:15 AM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote:
>
>
On Mar 4, 2012 1:13 AM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2012 12:54 AM, "Grant" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I enabled some more kernel options under USB Network Adapters and it's
> > working now. The install is about done but there were a few
> > peculiarities:
> >
> > 1. fdisk won't let me specify
On Mar 4, 2012 12:54 AM, "Grant" wrote:
>
> >>> I just received the new Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook and I'm trying to
> >>> install Gentoo but I can't get install-amd64-minimal-20120223.iso to
> >>> boot via a USB key.
> >>
> >> Have you tested your boot USB keys on another machine?
> >
> > Gentoo is in
>>> I just received the new Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook and I'm trying to
>>> install Gentoo but I can't get install-amd64-minimal-20120223.iso to
>>> boot via a USB key.
>>
>> Have you tested your boot USB keys on another machine?
>
> Gentoo is installed but I can't get my USB->ethernet adapter to bring
>> I just received the new Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook and I'm trying to
>> install Gentoo but I can't get install-amd64-minimal-20120223.iso to
>> boot via a USB key.
>
> Have you tested your boot USB keys on another machine?
Gentoo is installed but I can't get my USB->ethernet adapter to bring
up an e
On 03/01/2012 06:12 PM, Grant wrote:
> I just received the new Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook and I'm trying to
> install Gentoo but I can't get install-amd64-minimal-20120223.iso to
> boot via a USB key.
Have you tested your boot USB keys on another machine?
28 matches
Mail list logo
