From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: BTRFS partition usage... Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20080212.170803.205678080.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080212.152652.217936905.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: chris.mason@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, btrfs-devel@oss.oracle.com To: jengelh@computergmbh.de Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:59845 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752562AbYBMBHb (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:07:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jan Engelhardt Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:39:16 +0100 (CET) > On the other hand, the H and S of CHS could be lowered and S increased, > e.g. divide H by 2, divide S by 2, multiply S by 4. This gives a finer > bytes/cylinder granularity. That's really not an option when you only have 16-bits in the disk label for some of these values, which is the case for Sun disk labels and some others (f.e. BSD). Jan, please get past this, it's a real issue and we therefore have to skip the initial 1K or so in order to provide something even approaching sane. No modern filesystem should put it's superblock at position zero.