From: nowhere@nevernet.at   
      
   On 03/05/2022 20:15, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
      
   >>>>>> any reason for this 1MB ?   
   >>>>>> while my not supporting NTFS OS mainly have 64GB partitions, all my   
   >>>>>> partitions are 2GB aligned because 2GB became finally my minimum size.   
   >>>>> 2GB is aligned on a 1MB boundary (2048MB).   
   >>>> :) this is obvious of course but the question why you said 1MB remains.   
      
   >>> Probably because if you start the first partition at 2GB, you're wasting   
   >>> the first 2GB (since the MBR can't be part of the first partition).    
   Granted   
   >>> that's only 1% of a 2TB drive.   
      
   >> I don't see your point here, why do you think the MBR can't be part of   
   >> the first partition ? My OS reside and start at partition LBA_0 and this   
   >> sector already contains all required start-up code.   
      
   > Why would you want the MBR as part of a filesystem partition?  They're   
   > completely different and distinct entities.   
      
   see below   
      
   > Disk /dev/sda: 149.1 GiB, 160041885696 bytes, 312581808 sectors   
   > Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes   
   > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes   
   > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes   
   > Disklabel type: dos   
   > Disk identifier: 0x00003fea   
      
   > Device    Boot     Start       End   Blocks  Id System   
   > /dev/sda1 *         2048   1026047   512000  83 Linux   
   > /dev/sda2       17426432 122284031 52428800  83 Linux   
   > /dev/sda3      122284032 312581807 95148888   5 Extended   
   > /dev/sda5      122286080 312580095 95147008  83 Linux   
      
   My OS doesn't support but recognizes NTFS, EXFAT and Loonix.   
   it got a very own (never fragmenting and never swapping) FS.   
   So it even doesn't have VBR apart from MBR, all info is found   
   already in the first sector.   
      
   But my four partition entries at the end of LBA_0 are:   
      
   1st type0x4b ("K") 64GB or less for my KESYS (points to self)   
        windoze don't know "K" and therefore doesn't touch it.   
   2nd and up may contain any other type and could also have   
        MBR and VBR the usual way and I can make my OS boot them   
        without the help of a BIOS.   
      
   >> or are you arguing just for the sake of it?   
      
   > No, I'm legitimately questioning the wisdom of including   
   > the MBR[*] in any partition assigned to a filesystem.  If you   
   > want to create a partition for the MBR alone, that's up to   
   > you, but given the limitations on the number of partitions   
   > and alignment requirements in the legacy MBR it seems unwise.   
      
   > [*] Actually, I'd question the use of MBR itself, given the   
   > flexibility, safety (e.g. backup labels) and ubiquity of GPT tools.   
      
   I'd never use C-created tools.   
   my OS is safe because it doesn't blindly allow boot from partitions.   
   It is as flexible or even more as any other OS. UEFI and GPT seem to   
   spoil my concept, but there are ways to override that.   
      
   so I repeat my question: why 1MB ?   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)