On 5 June 2011 10:59, JD <jd1008@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/04/11 17:36, David wrote: >> On 5 June 2011 10:19, Aaron Konstam<akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It would be better if partition ends on a cylinder boundary but the >>> system will still work. >> I am curious about *how* specifically that "it would be better". >> In what situation is a end "cylinder boundary" important or relevant? > The filesystem builds it's map of blocks in groups > of cylinders. > You can see this clearly when you create a partition > which will use up the rest of the disk (ie, to end of disk). > often about 8mb always remains unused at end of disk > because it is not a complete cylinder. Thanks for your interest and reply. "because it is not a complete CYLINDER" (my emphasis added) I am curious if you can cite a reference for this? What filesystem are you referring to? So (assuming some linux filesystem) if we looked at its mkfs code, we would see that it cares about obsolete (and meaningless under linux, not to mention irrevocably broken for large disks) MSDOS cylinders? Just asking because I feel that this is unlikely but would be pleased to be corrected by any authoritative facts you can cite :-) -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
