On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 28 Jul 2018 at 10:57:45 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Rick Thomas wrote: > > > > rbthomas@small:~$ lsblk -t > > > > NAME ALIGNMENT MIN-IO OPT-IO PHY-SEC LOG-SEC ROTA SCHED > > > > RQ-SIZE RA WSAME > > > > sda 0 4096 33553920 4096 512 1 > > > > mq-deadline 60 128 0B > > > > `-sda1 0 4096 33553920 4096 512 1 > > > > mq-deadline 60 128 0B > > > > |-small-swap -1 4096 0 4096 512 1 > > > > 128 128 32M > > > > |-small-root -1 4096 0 4096 512 1 > > > > 128 128 32M > > > > `-small-home -1 4096 0 4096 512 1 > > > > 128 128 32M > > > > mmcblk2 0 512 0 512 512 0 > > > > mq-deadline 128 128 0B > > > > |-mmcblk2p1 0 512 0 512 512 0 > > > > mq-deadline 128 128 0B > > > > `-mmcblk2p2 0 512 0 512 512 0 > > > > mq-deadline 128 128 0B > > > > rbthomas@small:~$ > > > > > > Note the alignment values of “-1” for the lvm entries but not for the GPT > > > partition or the whole disk. > > > Why do you suppose that is? > > > > Keep in mind that you *offset*-align the outer container *only*, and then > > inside > > you just keep the size alignment. > > > > So, the above ensures correct use of the partitions even if sda1 is > > unaligned. > > > > If you offset-align sda1 to -1, everything inside it should have an offset > > of > > zero to keep the alignment correct. > > I don't think I fully understand the explanation. Can you point out > the number(s) that's wrong, and how it should be corrected.
There is nothing wrong on the table above as far as I can tell, *assuming* the device does need the -1 alignment. Since sda1 isn't aligned, everything inside it at the first level must be (and is) aligned at -1 to compensate. Where sda1 aligned at -1, nothing inside it should be, as sda1 would already provide the required alignemnt to anything inside it. > (To which number does the -1 apply, and what units is it in?) It applies to whatever line it is listed, and it is in "host-side sectors" (512 bytes in this case), where "host" is "your computer" as opposed to "the HDD". No idea why your USB-connected HDD is causing the warnings. I didn't think there were still devices in the market with that dreadful "windows workaround" (which not even windows want, nowadays)... but USB-connected HDDs are *always* suspect of insanity caused by crap protocol bridges, so YMMV. -- Henrique Holschuh
