| To: | Hillel Lubman <shtetldik@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives? |
| From: | Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:06:31 -0700 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1564490.3HJmP8WlOV@shtub-cm> |
| References: | <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <2511571.nTXGg0tW6M@shtub-cm> <54ACC472.4010104@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1564490.3HJmP8WlOV@shtub-cm> |
| Sender: | chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Hillel Lubman <shtetldik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One is a recent portable WD USB3 drive (elements) and another is a regular > 3.5" internal AF WD black in an enclosure (also attached through USB3). I > didn't recently test the case of a drive attached through regular SATA. A common theme emerges, so far 6 for 6 drives behaving this way are in USB enclosures. At least one vendor ships an external drive (drive inside an enclosure) that causes parted to report 4096B/4096B logical/physical sectors. The drive inside is actually 512e so it's 512B/4096B, and the result of this is that partitioning/formatting it inside the enclosure means it's completely unreadable outside the enclosure and vice versa. So cute and adorable. -- Chris Murphy |
| Previous by Date: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Chris Murphy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs Digest, Vol 79, Issue 19, David Raffelt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Hillel Lubman |
| Next by Thread: | xfs down, Mingfan Lu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |