Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector s

To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
From:	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:56:17 -0500
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Au4+vZG+5MWG0ap9A1/ETSNhk058fHnIPbZ9atnKaLs=; b=ofpaFDola52fZs6s2f+23UaHIy0vczKZbneyNsOkOmiYLfFlLuE7zTgwRItV74KFO8 F4fSLcAlQ1CxI0BaBKd3svczUYXohBUXVUB4joqmG/kSr5pRCT82sLXuyzUI6u6YnEfi dnrY6DHQEjRPGz4qEkKAsaX9V4xR+7mb3lBJY=
In-reply-to:	<yq1vcq4grgi.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<1322162451-17036-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111124195042.GA3671@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127010643.GU2386@dastard> <4ED2C233.8010104@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127235051.GX2386@dastard> <yq1vcq4grgi.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And while Christoph is right that (thankfully) nobody ended up shipping
> drives with 1-alignment by default, most 512e drives have the alignment
> jumper and some people actually use it.

I've seen at least one of my clients use the jumper.  It was my first
realization that jumper actually "moves" stuff on the disk.

I realize its a virtual move, but data read from sector 63 with the
jumper in place is not the same data that is read from sector 63 with
the jumper removed.

It caught me off guard.  The fix in this case was just to re-install
the jumper like the client had it originally.

Greg

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, (continued) Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Dave Chinner Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Eric Sandeen Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Dave Chinner Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Christoph Hellwig Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Martin K. Petersen Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Eric Sandeen Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Martin K. Petersen Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Eric Sandeen Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Dave Chinner Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Carlos Maiolino Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Greg Freemyer <= Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Christoph Hellwig

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:	Re: [PATCH 0/6] XFS update for 3.1-stable, Ben Myers
Next by Date:	Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix attr2 vs large data fork assert, Ben Myers
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Carlos Maiolino
Next by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Christoph Hellwig
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Previous by Date:

Re: [PATCH 0/6] XFS update for 3.1-stable, Ben Myers

Next by Date:

Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: fix attr2 vs large data fork assert, Ben Myers

Previous by Thread:

Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Carlos Maiolino

Next by Thread:

Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size, Christoph Hellwig

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]