| To: | Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives? |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:23:42 -0600 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAJCQCtQqseJ_75WSjqqNMmSjYW-0-L_cWBDDECRVOkiTmHLeVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CAJCQCtQqseJ_75WSjqqNMmSjYW-0-L_cWBDDECRVOkiTmHLeVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On 1/6/15 1:05 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > 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 I don't think they get it wrong, they are just reporting what the drive says over that interface. I ... don't actually know where smartctl/hdparm get the values, vs. the values exported to blockdev. Is the drive reporting different values over different query interfaces? Hrm. mkfs.xfs uses the same interface as used by blockdev. -Eric |
| Previous by Date: | Re: a simple and scalable pNFS block layout server, J. Bruce Fields |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 14/18] nfsd: pNFS block layout driver, J. Bruce Fields |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Chris Murphy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Chris Murphy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |