lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: sector size of 2068?
Date
From
In message <Pine.LNX.3.95.980827132719.204B-100000@chaos.analogic.com>, 
"Richar
d B. Johnson" writes:
+-----
| On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Peter wrote:
| > What would need to be changed to make a SCSI disk with sector_size
| > reporting back as 2068 work?
| In the SCSI controller BIOS setup, low-level format the drive using
| your new controller. The drive was apparently low-level formatted on
+--->8

We've been through that already. His question is, why can't we use it with
2068? (The reason he asked being that more space is "wasted" with 512-byte
sectors due to sector mark overhead.)

The short answer is that most of the kernel assumes that disk sector sizes
are a power of 2 and therefore can be represented via bit shifting 2068
isn't a power of 2, so isn't eligible. 2048 might well be doable, though,
if you really wanted it....
| optimization to select the proper head, etc. Therefore I doubt
| that the "real" block-size is 2068. In practice, it's usually
| 512 or a multiple thereof.
+--->8

It has been suggested that they chose a format that makes the disk look as
big as possible. That it's not *usable* in that format (to my knowledge, no
other OS does 2068-byte sectors either) isn't significant to marketroids
pushed to "demonstrate" their numbers....
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
carnegie mellon university



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site