From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262710AbTDNCVf (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:21:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262711AbTDNCVe (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:21:34 -0400 Received: from siaag1ac.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.5]:61167 "EHLO siaag1ac.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262710AbTDNCVe (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:21:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:29:38 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Benefits from computing physical IDE disk geometry? To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304132233_MC3-1-3441-D4EF@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You couldn't even tell where such boundaries exist, or what the real > block size of the underlying media is. Cyliners are all different sizes. Not even if you do timing tests? I know people have done tests that pinpoint where the xfer rate changes, for example. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but I bet you could get some useful information. And at the very least, remapped sectors should be easy to spot... --