xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:15:41 -0500
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4ED3B2BC.1060609@xxxxxxxxxxx> (Eric Sandeen's message of "Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:11:40 -0600")
Organization: Oracle
References: <1322162451-17036-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111124195042.GA3671@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127010643.GU2386@dastard> <4ED2C233.8010104@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127235051.GX2386@dastard> <yq1vcq4grgi.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ED3B2BC.1060609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.110017 (No Gnus v0.17) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Eric> It seems that we should be checking for any alignment offsets in
Eric> libxfs then, too; if there IS an offset, then perhaps 4k is the
Eric> wrong answer, (perhaps there is no right answer) but if there is
Eric> NO offset, 4k should be the right choice, yes?

In most cases the partitioning/DM tools should give you a 0 offset. But
it would a good idea to at least print a warning if lbs != pbs and
offset > 0.


Eric> And if the drive is broken then c'est la vie?

Yes :)


FWIW, the reason 4KB lbs drives are having a revival in the is that
there is not a lot of confidence in 512e for the enterprise. Many
vendors won't support them in servers due to correctness concerns and
lack of performance predictability.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen      Oracle Linux Engineering

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