| To: | Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 4k sector drives |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:47:51 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <201007231259.11714@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <201007211333.48363.eye.of.the.8eholder@xxxxxxxxx> <201007230809.28111@xxxxxx> <20100723095832.GA23174@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201007231259.11714@xxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:59:07PM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Freitag, 23. Juli 2010 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > -b size=4096 is the default anyway, for 4k sector drivers you also > > want -s size=4096, which you do not want for 512 byte sector disks. > > Thanks for clarification. Should I use "-s size=4096" despite the drive > saying 512b sectors? It's a "hidden" 4K sector drive, so maybe declaring > it extra for XFS helps performance? Or does it not matter at all? If it really is one using -s size=4096 is the right thing to do. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, master, updated. v2.6.34-10324-g7346e11, xfs |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/3] serialise concurrent direct IO sub-block zeroing, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 4k sector drives, Matthias Schniedermeyer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 4k sector drives, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |