[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD?

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD?
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:47:55 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B957E03.9090000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100308221044.GA17830@xxxxxxx> <4B957E03.9090000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On 08.03.2010 16:45, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > 
> > More than a month ago i bought 4 Western Digital WD15EARS (1.5 TB) which 
> > are (AFAIK) the first general/commercial available 4k sector SATA-HDDs.
> > 
> > Unfortunatly the HDDs lie about the 4k physical sector size and the most 
> > prominent drawback is a worse than abysmal delete performance.
> > ("Normal" Read & Write-performance is OK)
> > 
> > So if i wanted to (re-)mkfs the filesystems what would the correct 
> > parameters be?
> > 
> > Kernel/Userspace is pretty recent (Debian-SID):
> > mkfs.xfs version 3.1.1, kernel v2.6.33, util-linux 2.16.0
> > Not that that should matter when the HDDs lies.
> Recent kernel+util-linux-ng++fdisk+parted+xfsprogs -should- do the right 
> thing for you....
> Oh, but this was maybe the drive that didn't output the right stuff when 
> queried.

hdparm -I /dev/sdg | grep "Sector size"
        Logical/Physical Sector size:           512 bytes

hdparm -V
hdparm v9.27

I vagely remember a posting on LKML that said it's a "known problem" 
that the WD??EARS lie about physical sector size.

> Make sure your partitions, if any, are on 4k boundaries.(*)  older fdisk at 
> least
> won't do this by default, not sure about parted.

It's an encrypted loop at am 4k offset to leave space for a fake MBR 
(and more importantly a signature for a custom udev-script).

> once that is done, tell mkfs.xfs "-s size=4096" to set the 4k sector size

So that should be enough?
Time for backup/mkfs/restore then.

Bis denn

Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.

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