I know that for decades now, hard disks don't really reveal their actual internal geometry (which is complicated anyway, since inner cylinders may have fewer sectors than outer cylinders, etc.), and present fictional geometries to satisfy legacy software, but I found it weird anyway.
I have a ZFS raidz2 NAS which originally consisted of 8x2 TB SAS disks and is now in the process of being live-upgraded to 8x4 TB (change disks one by one, resilver, change, resilver, etc ...)
I now have four of the disks replaced, and in NetBSD they all report different geometries. They all report the exact same number of total blocks, so it's not actually an issue, but still strange.
sd0 at scsibus0 target 0 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed
sd0: 3726 GB, 330809 cyl, 10 head, 2362 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors
sd1 at scsibus0 target 1 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed
sd1: 3726 GB, 348145 cyl, 10 head, 2244 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors
sd3 at scsibus0 target 3 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed
sd3: 3726 GB, 342419 cyl, 10 head, 2282 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors
sd7 at scsibus0 target 7 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed
sd7: 3726 GB, 341874 cyl, 10 head, 2285 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors
Two of them are IBM-branded (although they are in fact all Seagate Constellation ES.3), so I might expect slight differences, but even those with the same branding and the same revision present different geometries.
Anyway, probably just a curiosity, it will be interesting to find what the remaining four disks will show.
I might add that the older 2 TB disks (Seagate Constalleation ES, IBM-branded) all show the exact same geometry:
sd2 at scsibus0 target 2 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed
sd2: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors
sd4 at scsibus0 target 4 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed
sd4: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors
sd5 at scsibus0 target 5 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed
sd5: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors
sd6 at scsibus0 target 6 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed
sd6: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors
I'm not touching that post again. But a small rant about typesetting in lemmy: It seems there is no way whatsoever to put angle brackets in a "code" section. In an overzealous attempt to prevent HTML injection, everything in angle brackets is just removed when posting (although it remains there in preview). In normal text, you can use "<", but not inside "code" segments, where it will be retained verbatim.
I think that they were actually getting hit with attacks.
googles
Yeah:
https://lemmy.world/post/3986993