# fdisk /dev/sda
The device presents a logical sector size that is smaller than
the physical sector size. Aligning to a physical sector (or optimal
I/O) size boundary is recommended, or performance may be impacted.
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xffce0322
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 2048 4196351 2097152 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda2 * 4196352 46139391 20971520 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 46141438 976754687 465306625 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
Partition 3 does not start on physical sector boundary.
/dev/sda5 46141440 88094719 20976640 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 88096768 104871935 8387584 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 104873984 734011391 314568704 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 734013440 750791409 8388985 83 Linux
… is this something I should repair, and if so how do I do it without losing data?
No reason for concern, as far as I can tell. The misaligned partition is the external partition. But logical partitions within that seem okay.
The use of 4K physical blocks is becoming common on the newer disks.
A greater problem is that if you put that disk in a USB drive enclosure, there’s a good chance it will show a logical block size of 4K. And since the partition table is based on logical block size, the partitioning will be shown wrongly.
It isn’t te partitioning, but the sector size. More down to the “hardware”. This is already getting more and more remote from the real sectors by the firmware layer in the disk controler on revolving disks, but on an SSD and other static memory devices it is of course pure emulation of the disk sectors of old.
You mght be aware that people who try to help like to know what version of openSUSE is involved. Sometimes people think that mentioning their openSUSE version in their signature is enough for this. I do not encourage this for two reasons:
To begin with, when one can not find the information in the first paragraph of a question/problem, one must remember to scroll down to see if it is in the signature. When it is, and not open to debate, then one found it and can scroll back to the top.
When someone changes his/her signature (e.g. when (s)he upgraded his system), the actual signature will be shown also in old posts, thus making those old posts ureliable (to say it polite).
In your case, the outcome of reading the signature was debatable. And no, it is of course not needed to report/ask twice. It is enough to say in the beginning that you see the phenomenon on 12.2 and 12.3 alike. This is about helping your potential helpers, not about buraucracy.