Matthias Schniedermeyer put forth on 2/19/2011 4:02 AM:
> On 18.02.2011 21:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Fist, sorry for the length. I can tend to get windy talking shop. :)
>> Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 2:31 PM:
>>> It's IBM and LSI gear, so I'm crossing my fingers that a Linux install
>>> will be relatively painless.
>> Ahh, good. At least, so far it seems so. ;)
>>> I thought that the filesystem block size was still limited to the kernel
>>> page size, which is 4K on x86 systems.
>>> "The maximum filesystem block size is the page size of the kernel, which
>>> is 4K on x86 architecture."
>>> Is this no longer true? It would be awesome news if it wasn't.
>> My mistake. It would appear you are limited to the page size, which, as
>> I mentioned, is still 8 KiB for most distros.
> You confuse that with STACK-size.
Yes, I did. However...
> The page-size is, and has always been, 4 KiB (on X86).
To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree or
disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS block size will yield
little if any advantage over a 4 KiB block size, and may in fact have
some disadvantages, specifically with small file random IO?