2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com:
Do you like cheap storage or 512 byte sectors?
Depends. You know: the storage itself may be somewhat cheaper - but
because of its incompatibility, it can force me to replace part of my
hardware, or to spend a lot of time for additional work
2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com:
Oh, I forgot to address this one:
Most of us like this progress. While I do enjoy tinkering with my old
hardware, it's not usable for things that most people need to do today.
No, you're wrong; it's not usable for bloated software of
One estimate for 4K sector technology puts this at 100 bytes of ECC
data needed for a 4K sector, versus 320 (40x8) for 8 512B sectors.
Yes, that's about 5% (5,37% to be exact) you'll gain from 4k sectors.
Perhaps a bit more than 5% due to fewer inter-sector gaps. Since they
are kept small
On 4/10/2011 11:35 PM, Jack wrote:
Also, I do not know you and you do not know me, so WHO ARE YOU to assume
I am irritated or in a bad mood?!! Are you in fact a COMMUNIST?? I
seem to recall THEY used to operate via trying to beat-DOWN opposition
with such unqualified INSULTS as you have
... but on modern hardware we have enough to burn.
Wasting anything just because we can afford it is generally
a bad idea.
With which I absolutely agree. But it seems only I wonder how
much farther ahead Windows/Linux might be, if their kernels and
drivers [as a MINIMUM!] HAD in fact been
My point in the thread is that YOU do not get to choose what is the
appropriate rate of progress. Either stock up on spare parts, or move
along. Disparaging everybody in the industry who has a different point
of view is ranting.
I do not call it progress when the PC industry flatly DENIES
2011/4/11, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net:
The second point that you fail to grasp is that it costs too much
money to maintain backwards compatibility with outdated standards
past a certain point ...
Tell that to the automobile and other industries in this country [..]
Maybe you don't
You may already realize this but, at least for now, all HDDs on the
market with 4k physical sector size still report and work with 512b
sector sizes.
Some also report extended attributes that let aware OSs know they have
4k physical sector sizes.
Thus, they ARE backwards compatible, and the
OK, I'm afraid I let this thread get out of hand. This is a passionate
group.
The fact of the matter is simple. Hardware does progress and we, the
FreeDOS developers, have to accommodate new hardware. We may not do it as
quickly as some like, but nonetheless, we do.
There will come a time
Hi everybody,
as Pat, I am surprised that this thread got so emotional. However,
the topic itself is still very interesting, so I would like to add
mixed comments (ignoring all irritated / communist questions).
My mail is a bit long, but also tries to summarize what I want to
say about this
2011/4/11, Eric Auer:
Finally about two other Zbigniew topics: You should not use 2 GB
FAT16 partitions, those still have very large clusters. Better use
FAT32 partitions of only a few GB at most if you want to have a
system with small clusters. Of course the FAT might be bigger then.
Of
One of the key things I'm thinking about is, independent of total space
on the drive, it looks like physical sector sizes larger than 512b may
be all that is available at some point in the not too distant future. Of
course the drives will continue to appear as 512b to OSs/apps that don't
know
Vote with your wallet. I'm personally not buying any 4k drives nor for
myself nor for companies I'm working for. When you need more than 2Tb of
space you always can add another 2Tb drive instead of replacing old
drive with bigger (3Tb) one.
On 10.04.11 10:10, Scott wrote:
One of the key things
On 4/10/2011 5:20 AM, escape wrote:
Vote with your wallet. I'm personally not buying any 4k drives nor for
myself nor for companies I'm working for. When you need more than 2Tb of
space you always can add another 2Tb drive instead of replacing old
drive with bigger (3Tb) one.
I think that is
Please get it right. I'm not arguing against support of new
technologies. But now it's often when manufacturers trying to disguise
cost cutting and marketing rubbish as prominent new technology.
Look at monitors as an example. Getting 16:10 aspect along with 4:3 was
not a bad idea. While for some
On 4/10/2011 12:08 PM, escape wrote:
Please get it right. I'm not arguing against support of new
technologies. But now it's often when manufacturers trying to disguise
cost cutting and marketing rubbish as prominent new technology.
Look at monitors as an example. Getting 16:10 aspect along
On 10.04.11 20:51, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
I don't think I misread you. But the market is geared to the current
problems, not the past problems. For some strange reason people like
widescreen monitors even though most of our reading would benefit from
portrait monitors.
I'm agree with
I shall add my two-cents worth to the current philosophical
discussion about 4K sectors as follows --
To me, the most disturbing thing about modern PC systems is
their ABSOLUTE LACK of concern for backward compatibility!
We really did NOT need the PCI bus in 1994, except that Intel
wanted to
Jack,
I love a good rant as much as anybody, but some context is needed.
PCI was desperately needed by server class hardware. The ISA bus and
the extensions to the ISA bus were failing for several reasons:
- Inability to share interrupt lines
- Three fragmented standards (ISA, VL, and EISA)
Consumers (home and business) for the most part buy the bulk of their
storage on $/GB type of decisions. Buying multiple lower capacity HDDs
does not meet this model.
The 2.5 and 3.5 form factors are such an embedded standard that making
your drives a different size to get more platter area is
Michael,
You missed my point about backward compatibility, which has been
notoriously ABSENT from the historical events I noted.
PCI was desperately needed by server class hardware ...
Fine, let them have it. But why did ORDINARY users have to be
forced into buying newer mainboards, which
2011/4/10, Jack:
Or, in fact, could this maybe [... just MAYBE!] be another case
of the Wintel Consortium software BRATS being UNABLE to achieve
their targets, using only their college-professors' and bosses'
much-beloved C, and it is actually THOSE brats who are asking
for such help??
This
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net wrote:
A REAL BUS, you say?? If so, then explain to me why, on so
many Intel-based systems, there are so many PCI BRIDGES!! If
it were a real bus, there would be only ONE bus, NOT so many
bridges to yet-another set of wires
On 2011/04/10 14:55 (GMT-0700) Scott composed:
more efficient use of the space, and that is what
4k sectors gets us.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2888
One estimate for 4K sector technology puts this at 100 bytes of ECC
data needed for a 4K sector, versus 320 (40x8) for 8 512B
Scott,
Consumers (home and business) for the most part buy the bulk of
their storage on $/GB type of decisions. Buying multiple lower
capacity HDDs does not meet this model.
A lot of Internet vendor websites, such as NewEgg, just may prove
you wrong. Every time I look at NewEgg and
Scott,
My apologies (age 65 again!); in my last post about disk ECC
sizes, I meant to say 10 byte and 16 byte ECCs, not bit.
Jack R. Ellis
--
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming
smartphone
Zbigniew,
This reminds me somewhat a Forth's Dillemma rant: ...
Which I read, and I do not regard it as any rant but a
statement of fact, especially as I suffered the same --
In 1968, when I still did 360/DOS mainframe work, IBM added
job-stack capability for the DOS foreground-1 and -2
2011/4/10, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net:
Your Forth's Dilemma is not any sort of rant but really
a statement of fact. I know, since I have BEEN there and
DONE that!, as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting, and (as
I wrote) your opinion
Zbigniew,
Your Forth's Dilemma is not any sort of rant but really
a statement of fact. I know, since I have BEEN there and
DONE that!, as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting,
and (as I wrote) your opinion brought it back to my mind.
On 4/10/11 3:56 PM, Jack wrote:
A lot of Internet vendor websites, such as NewEgg, just may prove
you wrong. Every time I look at NewEgg and others, the latest-
and-greatest hard disk has a price premium far WORSE than buying
2 hard disks of 1/2 the size.
Most people don't buy the latest and
Jack,
There are so many inaccuracies and distortions in the reply that you
sent, I'm going to assume you are just irritated or in a bad mood.
The world moves on ... it doesn't make sense to support existing
standards forever. You can have eternal support, or affordable prices,
but not both.
There are so many inaccuracies and distortions in the reply that you
sent, I'm going to assume you are just irritated or in a bad mood.
In fact, I was neither, until reading what you post below. Once again
you choose only to pick nits at the technical examples I mention, but
flatly REFUSE to
On 11.04.11 00:55, Scott wrote:
One estimate for 4K sector technology puts this at 100 bytes of ECC
data needed for a 4K sector, versus 320 (40x8) for 8 512B sectors.
Yes, that's about 5% (5,37% to be exact) you'll gain from 4k sectors.
For 2Tb drive it will be equal to 100Gb of space. The
Hi Scott,
I see that the FreeDOS format command has a /A option to use 4k sector
formatting.
That is not actually 4k sector formatting, as the help explains:
/A Force metadata (reserved/boot sectors and FAT32s together) to be a
multiple of 4k in size. The NTFS
Hi Jack, thanks for the explanations - adding some history:
Second, file I-O done by other DOS programs uses either 24-bit CHS
requests (up through V6.22 MS-DOS) or 48-bit LBA requests (all new
DOS variants including FreeDOS).
Looking in the far past, CHS was once about the real number of
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 17:44 -0700, Jack wrote:
Third, although a 48-bit disk logical-block address (LBA) could be
specified, DOS systems have not-yet gone beyond using more than 32
bits of block count (i.e. sectors) in a disk directory, limiting
DOS files (and disks!) to 2-TB maximum. More
I see that the FreeDOS format command has a /A option to use 4k sector
formatting.
Have any of the underlying I/O paths or built-in tools for
writing/cloning/copying/etc been updated to understand the new
generation of large drives that use 4K physical sectors but still accept
512b
Scott,
I am the author of the UIDE driver for DOS systems. Eric Auer is
away from E-Mail, for a few days, so I will reply directly to your
thread about Large drives with 4K sectors --
First, DOS formatting programs are in effect stand alone utility
programs, that can pretty-much do what they
Thank you for the quick and informative response. It is pretty much just
what I figured, but I had to verify first.
On 4/7/11 5:44 PM, Jack wrote:
I am the author of the UIDE driver for DOS systems. Eric Auer is
away from E-Mail, for a few days, so I will reply directly to your
thread about
Sorry, in my comments to Scott about large 4K-sector disk drives,
all occurrences of 2-GB should actually be 2-TB (Terabytes)! As
I often note, age 65 is S much fun (i.e. NOT!).
--
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major
40 matches
Mail list logo
