[Top] [All Lists]

Re: block size in XFS = hard coded constant?

To: L A Walsh <law@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: block size in XFS = hard coded constant?
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:26:27 +1000
Cc: Linux-Xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <NFBBKNPJLGIDJFAHGKMBIEIJCDAA.law@xxxxxxxxx>; from law@xxxxxxxxx on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:55:38AM -0700
References: <1033336748.1088.4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <NFBBKNPJLGIDJFAHGKMBIEIJCDAA.law@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:55:38AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> Right -- I know it isn't the filesystem block size.
> In this day and age, it seems anachronistic.  Given the 10% higher block
> density, not only would it yield higher capacities, but should yield higher
> transfer rates, no?
> I know it isn't a simple constant switch -- but I wouldn't want to switch
> constants since not all disks should be constrained to the same block size.

I have some code which implements an initial version of >512 byte sector
sizes for the XFS data device - I was just chatting about this with Steve
today.  Initial benchmarking results seem to suggest that it does indeed
perform slightly better.  Support for this will likely be making its way
into XFS in the future, but not right away.



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