On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Curtis Shimamoto < sugar.and.scruffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/07/13 at 04:24pm, Mike Cloaked wrote: > > As part of my planning for setting up a home build computer which will > use > > two ssd drives - one a Crucial M4 mSATA drive (for root and boot > > partitions) and a second larger Crucial M4 SATA III drive for the rest, I > > have been reading up about partitioning and optimising such drives - > > > > It seems that it is important to partition with proper alignment to MiB > > boundaries for partitions but I am unclear if this happens automatically > or > > not when setting up GPT partitions with gparted? ( I usually partition > > using a liveusb running PartedMagic and then run gparted before > installing > > arch) > > > I am not user about gparted, but I know that gptfdisk handles this > automatically as does fdisk these days. I am not so familiar with parted > in general, so maybe someone else can step in here. > > > Also I have been seeing various bits of advice about ensuring that > > excessive writes are avoided by using a non-default IO scheduler - with > > "deadline" being the better option for SSDs than the default CFQ > scheduler > > - and it would seem that adding the parameter to the kernel line for boot > > once a system is set up is perhaps a good way forward? How does that work > > if UEFI booting? > > > I use a udev rule to determine what scheduler should be used for what. > At one point I had both rotational disks and a solid state drive. So I > continued to use CFQ for the rotational and I use NOOP for the flash > based media. This is what I use: > > ACTION=="add", KERNEL=="sd[a-z]", ATTR{queue/rotational}=="0", \ > ATTR{queue/scheduler}="noop" > Yet, according to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22605, CFQ should be able to handle SSD just fine. So does it really make a big difference? Sander