xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected.

To: Utz Lehmann <ulehmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Corruption of in-memory data detected.
From: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:32:27 -0400
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxx>, Marc Schmitt <schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, florin@xxxxxxx
Organization: SmithConcepts/AbsoluteValueSystems
References: <mkp@mkp.net> <200110251505.f9PF5De15624@jen.americas.sgi.com> <20011025173909.A1336@de.tecosim.com> <200110251538.f9PFcHh16594@jen.americas.sgi.com> <20011025181706.B1336@de.tecosim.com> <20011025182057.C1336@de.tecosim.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Utz Lehmann wrote:
> ok, i'm stupid. He has only 1.2TB and the default blocksize is
> 1k.  The test doesn't work until he can set his md device to
> 512 byte blocksize from userspace.

I don't know if this has any relevance, but don't the underlying
3Ware cards use a much bigger blocksize???  If this isn't an issue
from a compatibility standpoint, how about a performance one?

Or am I totally missing the mark here?

Are there any other limitations with using such small blocksizes? 
Even at 512bytes, we should be able to get 2TB (4Gblocks x 512
bytes), right?

-- TheBS

-- 
Bryan "TheBS" Smith    mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx   chat:thebs413
Engineer  AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc.  http://www.linux-wlan.org
President     SmithConcepts, Inc.   http://www.SmithConcepts.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Web site defacements are as much of a national security risk as
inner city kids spray painting.  There is nothing of value, and
nothing that can't be fixed with a little re-paint.  You'd have
to have the equivalent stupidity of someone parking an F-18 in
downtown LA.  Even then, the only damage would be a new scheme!
The US government wants life imprisonment for such "terrorism."


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>