Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...

[David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>]

> On Tuesday, September 08, 2020 12:53:00 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096
> > bytes that leaves room for whatever may need to be at the beginning of the
> > disk (like maybe the MBR, or LILO, or ???)?
> >
> > I've seen the advice to align partitions properly by starting them at a
> > multiple of 4096 bytes, and I have (I think) a reasonable understanding of
> > why (based on a sketch in the Wikipedia article on advanced partitioning).
> >
> > But then I see the advice to start the first partition at 2 MiB -- why not
> > at some lower multiple of 4096 while leaving room for anything that may
> > need to be at the very beginning of the disk?  (I haven't found an
> > explanation for that.)

On 2020-09-08 09:56, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry, the Wikipedia article is Advanced Format:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format

Please use inline posting style or bottom posting style.


Neither the string "2 MiB" nor the string "2 M" appear on page you have 
cited.


Please provide a URL that advocates "start the first partition at 2 MIB"


David