[Top] [All Lists]

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: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:38:33 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <yq1r50qhmte.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> <4ED3B2BC.1060609@xxxxxxxxxxx> <yq1r50qhmte.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
On 11/29/11 11:15 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "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.

Right, Dave's concern was for when the partitioning tools didn't do the
job, we don't want to break fs consistency guarantees...

Dave, does checking for an offset before choosing 4k sectors seem
sufficient to you?

> 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.

Imagine.  :)


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