[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced for

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 12:42:38 -0700
Cc: Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <54AC363E.1090109@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CAJCQCtQqseJ_75WSjqqNMmSjYW-0-L_cWBDDECRVOkiTmHLeVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54AC363E.1090109@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

The problem may be that the drive isn't being queried, but rather the
bridge chipset involved. All drives are AF drives in USB 3 enclosures.
But somehow hdparm and smartctl are getting actual drive info from the
drive through this interface; while the kernel appears to be fooled by

I don't immediately have a way to directly connect any to SATA. I will
bet dollars to donuts this is what's going on though, because I know
one of these drives when it was connected via SATA was reported by
parted as 512B/4096B but currently it isn't.

Chris Murphy

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