wolfgang kern <now...@nevernet.at
>On 02/05/2022 15:51, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> wolfgang kern <now...@nevernet.at
>>> On 01/05/2022 21:55, Joe Monk wrote:
>>>>> any reason for this 1MB ?
>>>>> while my not supporting NTFS OS mainly have 64GB partitions, all my
>>>>> partitions are 2GB aligned because 2GB became finally my minimum size.
>>>> 2GB is aligned on a 1MB boundary (2048MB).
>>> :) this is obvious of course but the question why you said 1MB remains.
>> Probably because if you start the first partition at 2GB, you're wasting
>> the first 2GB (since the MBR can't be part of the first partition). Granted
>> that's only 1% of a 2TB drive.
>I don't see your point here, why do you think the MBR can't be part of
>the first partition ? My OS reside and start at partition LBA_0 and this
>sector already contains all required start-up code.
Why would you want the MBR as part of a filesystem partition? They're
completely different and distinct entities.
Disk /dev/sda: 149.1 GiB, 160041885696 bytes, 312581808 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x00003fea
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 2048 1026047 512000 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 17426432 122284031 52428800 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 122284032 312581807 95148888 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 122286080 312580095 95147008 83 Linux
>or are you arguing just for the sake of it?
No, I'm legitimately questioning the wisdom of including
the MBR[*] in any partition assigned to a filesystem. If you
want to create a partition for the MBR alone, that's up to
you, but given the limitations on the number of partitions
and alignment requirements in the legacy MBR it seems unwise.
[*] Actually, I'd question the use of MBR itself, given the
flexibility, safety (e.g. backup labels) and ubiquity of GPT tools.