Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:51:48 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 4D2C8AA4.30300@hardwarefreak.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20110111091928.GA4148@wasteland.homelinux.net>
References: <[🔎] 2143830561-1294723761-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-159069788-@bda029.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <[🔎] 20110111091928.GA4148@wasteland.homelinux.net>

Jochen Schulz put forth on 1/11/2011 3:19 AM:

> And those pesky 4k blocks will never take hold. 512 bytes were a good
> idea in the 1950s, so what's wrong with it now!?

4KB blocks are great.  Too bad these drives report 512B blocks to the kernel,
which is what causes the problem.  "Advanced format" = hybrid, not native.

When we have _native_ 4KB sectors things will be much better, at least for
larger file types.  For mail servers native 4KB sectors will waste a lot of
platter space...

-- 
Stan

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
  - From: Jochen Schulz <ml@well-adjusted.de>

References:
- Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
  - From: teddieeb@tmo.blackberry.net
- Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
  - From: Jochen Schulz <ml@well-adjusted.de>

Prev by Date: Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
Next by Date: Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
Next by thread: Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread