
Solved!
Go to SolutionWindows 2003 GPT disk alignment
Could someone please clear this up for me? I've searched the forums and all the CX best practice docs I can find but still don't have a definitive answer. Searches refer to EMC White Paper 300-004-075 "Aligning GPT Basic and Dynamic disks" which I cannot seem to find.
MBR partitions must be aligned. Easy; no questions; been doing it for years.
What about GPT partitions? I've read conflicting things (even on this forum). Based on what I've found, a GPT partition does *not* need to be aligned. Here's my reasoning:
MBR uses a 63K area for storing the actual partition table. Since the CX uses a 64K element size as the default (which is what we use), an offset of 64K makes total sense.
GPT, from what I can tell, uses a 128MB (131,072K) area for storing the partition table. Since this is a multiple of 64K (by a factor of 2048), the GPT partition will automatically be aligned. Is this the correct conclusion or was my train of thought derailed somewhere?
In addition, if we *did* offset the GPT partition by 64K, this would have no impact as the partition table would now just be offset by a factor of 2049, or one more 64K chunk of disk.
I've been on vacation for two weeks so please help clear up my clouded mind!
Thanks!
Jeff
MBR partitions must be aligned. Easy; no questions; been doing it for years.
What about GPT partitions? I've read conflicting things (even on this forum). Based on what I've found, a GPT partition does *not* need to be aligned. Here's my reasoning:
MBR uses a 63K area for storing the actual partition table. Since the CX uses a 64K element size as the default (which is what we use), an offset of 64K makes total sense.
GPT, from what I can tell, uses a 128MB (131,072K) area for storing the partition table. Since this is a multiple of 64K (by a factor of 2048), the GPT partition will automatically be aligned. Is this the correct conclusion or was my train of thought derailed somewhere?
In addition, if we *did* offset the GPT partition by 64K, this would have no impact as the partition table would now just be offset by a factor of 2049, or one more 64K chunk of disk.
I've been on vacation for two weeks so please help clear up my clouded mind!
Thanks!
Jeff
Responses (0)
Solutions (0)
