From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Leslie Rhorer" Subject: RE: Adding a smaller drive Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:57 -0500 Message-ID: <20090707025746993.BGXW24657@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> References: <4A51255F.1020308@anonymous.org.uk> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A51255F.1020308@anonymous.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids > >> I think I might take to doing that too, making my partitions/arrays > >> multiples of 1,000,000,000 bytes (a drive maker's 1GB) where possible, > >> just to be sure :-) > > > > Well, that's not quite possible, of course, since sectors are > > usually 512 bytes, and 1E9 is not a multiple of 512. Indeed, that's > where > > this whole situation is ridiculous. For drive manufacturers to even > consider > > using GB as a measuring basis is ludicrous. If sectors were 1000 bytes, > and > > if computer registers were base 10, it would be an entirely different > > matter, but the fact is the sector size is 2^9 and all the register > > boundaries are going to be multiples of 2, not 10. > > But 10^9 is divisible by 512: 10^9 = (2*5)^9 = 2^9 * 5^9. There are > therefore 1953125 512-byte sectors in 1 drive maker's GB. Oh, good heavens! Silly me, how could I have missed that?