xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 4k sector drives

To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 4k sector drives
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:13:41 +0200
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100723155034.2a42ccd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <201007211333.48363.eye.of.the.8eholder@xxxxxxxxx> <201007230809.28111@xxxxxx> <20100723095832.GA23174@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201007231259.11714@xxxxxx> <4C4994CB.2050200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100723133843.GA3397@xxxxxxx> <20100723155034.2a42ccd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On 23.07.2010 15:50, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:38:43 +0200
> Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx> écrivait:
> 
> > Only for writes, reads are for practically unaffected.
> 
> Sequential writes may be relatively unaffected too; if you write
> sequentially a couple of megabytes you'll have only a couple of
> additional blocks at the beginning and end of operation.

What MAY hurt, also for large writes, are the meta-data operations while 
writing the file. (e.g. the file-size changes, journaling ...)

But i haven't tested that and can't say for sure how much that hurts.




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>