xfs
[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: Hillel Lubman <shtetldik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 00:17:50 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lV+TRC/pR1R+EqNGXpD+1AhF+IG/Ork655ndozx7F0Y=; b=xzFqmAsePnHAzLT+Uo6jcwHcUlDizDhBh8lTugYwd/JBLgxUzZ8t5D+5QIECmHbyC/ ZKsyitPT0d4T1fsDbaVXMKgXYgiJ+WSsRX9UX4KaTLGHJnT82pFxVtYH/ojMD2enpEDW Njll6pXFfbvoH7vRnCiT5CoDQnpcwtT+7jgHMpJ3QLVVPHPo4yzkbhg/jiCKCjw6qAjR yyWYxj8aCYr0CSvsgSob3NxEewfrYWGtwe3fVJsNFZ7V8zWN3YSaTQM9nuUq02nkrgpt nAGxcdfSH5LoSQTeh1SUR3SJ9VeLJWcF+xoJGtLNtjRAQBYM8D8YLGe1BxErKMQf7MQg 4JSg==
In-reply-to: <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )

On Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:02:09 Eric Sandeen wrote:

> On 1/4/15 6:56 PM, Hillel Lubman wrote:

> > Hi.

>

>

> > Can you please clarify what after all is the recommended sector size

> > for such drives and why isn't it a default in mkfs.xfs (since

> > supposedly defaults are generally recommended optimal settings unless

> > you have some special use case).

>

> It is indeed the default.

>

> [root@sandeen ~]# blockdev --getss --getpbsz /dev/sde

> 512

> 4096

> ...

>

> however, some drives lie about these sizes, and then mkfs.xfs can't know.

> Try the blockdev command above to see.

>

 

I see. Indeed, on the drive where I get sectsz as 512 by default, blockdev --getss --getpbsz reports:

512

512

 

However hdparm -I reports:

Logical Sector size: 512 bytes

Physical Sector size: 4096 bytes

 

So is it still worthwhile making sectsz 4 KB explicitly instead of using mkfs.xfs default in such case? And on a side note, since there is a more reliable way to figure that info out, may be mkfs.xfs should rather use that?

 

Regards,

Hillel.

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