I'm an admin who prefers details and exact info - I almost always work in sectors.
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 3:43 PM, John Pittman <jpitt...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Phil, > >> Kickstart isn't the typical intended user of parted, and if it wants >> sectors it can request them. > > I didn't claim it was, I was using it as an example to show that users don't > necessarily > need the default print to be compact and likely won't even need to look at it > at all. > Another and the best example of this, I suppose, would be parted's claim to > fame, > the script function. If you're running things from the command line ,or even > more so, from > a script, users do not generally print after creation. > >> Yes, seeing the exact sectors is sometimes useful when troubleshooting, >> and you can easily request that, but most of the time people people >> don't need to be concerned with sectors and prefer to work in gb, which >> is why that is the default. The lvm user interface also does not >> normally care about sectors. > > Seeing sectors is always useful, not sometimes. It's GB or MB (more and more > these days TB) > or any higher level measurement that is only sometimes useful. And if I'm > not mistaken, > lvm uses sector boundaries as a guide to writing it's labels/metadata. > Higher level > measurements are only useful with creation and whole disk size printing. > >> How do you figure? If I want a 10 gb root partition and a 100gb home >> partition, I tell parted to make a partition starting at 1m that is 10g >> long and another starting at 10g and is 100g long. When I print the >> table to check what I have done, I expect to see 10g and 100g, not >> whatever that works out to in sectors. > > This is the one and only argument I could think of for keeping print at > default compact. But the user can as easily add a 'u GB' or any other unit > as they can a 'u s'. > > Further, if a user comes to the parted tool to create, they will specify the > unit in almost all > cases. I have never seen, in my working with admins and the like, a case > where they do not. > However, if they come to the parted tool using the print command, they are > looking for > information for any number of reasons. This information should be provided > in the exact > form of sectors. We should not choose for them how exact the information > should be. This > is very different than parted automatically choosing the alignment because > there is no > inquiry into the partition structure by the user going on in that case. >