| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives? |
| From: | Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:05:17 -0700 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > however, some drives lie about these sizes, and then mkfs.xfs can't know. > Try the blockdev command above to see. blockdev and parted seem to get this wrong for a device for which smartctl and hdparm get correct smartctl -a reports: Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical hdparm -I reports: Logical Sector size: 512 bytes Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes parted reports: Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B # blockdev --getss /dev/sdc 512 # blockdev --getpbsz /dev/sdc 512 And thus xfs_info on this device says sectsz=512 since I formatted with defaults. -- Chris Murphy |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 02/18] fs: add FL_LAYOUT lease type, Jeff Layton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v7 9/11] xfstests: generic/043: Test multiple fallocate insert/collapse range calls, Brian Foster |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |