xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Change sector size on existing partition

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Change sector size on existing partition
From: Dewangga Bachrul Alam <dewanggaba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:26:04 +0700
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Disposition-notification-to: Dewangga Bachrul Alam <dewanggaba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <54C26D8F.1040402@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <54C246EC.90207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54C268ED.2000801@xxxxxxxxxxx> <54C26B5F.7000803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54C26D8F.1040402@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
Hi,

Thanks for your kind, but I don't know how to reproduce the errors, it
happens randomly. I try to reproduce on VM but nothing helps, I can't
create raid array on VM. :)

But, I'm quite sure there is miscalculation or something else that make
4k sector size on RAID-10 array.

And anyway, I found something interesting, it happens on my old
development server too, but I didn't use the application like on new
box. So it's no problem.

$ xfs_info /database/mysql
meta-data=/dev/mapper/vg_agnirudra-lv_database isize=256    agcount=32,
agsize=7629824 blks
         =                       sectsz=4096  attr=2, projid32bit=0
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=244154368, imaxpct=25
         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=119216, version=2
         =                       sectsz=4096  sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0

It's software raid-1 array. Here is the partition table.

NAME                                  MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE  MOUNTPOINT
sdc                                     8:32   0 931.5G  0 disk
ââsdc1                                  8:33   0 931.5G  0 part
  ââmd0                                 9:0    0 931.4G  0 raid1
    ââvg_agnirudra-lv_database (dm-2) 253:2    0 931.4G  0 lvm   /database
sda                                     8:0    0 279.5G  0 disk
ââsda1                                  8:1    0   500M  0 part  /boot
ââsda2                                  8:2    0   279G  0 part
  ââvg_os-lv_root (dm-0)              253:0    0   271G  0 lvm   /
  ââvg_os-lv_swap (dm-1)              253:1    0     8G  0 lvm   [SWAP]
sdb                                     8:16   0 931.5G  0 disk
ââsdb1                                  8:17   0 931.5G  0 part
  ââmd0                                 9:0    0 931.4G  0 raid1
    ââvg_agnirudra-lv_database (dm-2) 253:2    0 931.4G  0 lvm   /database
sr0                                    11:0    1  1024M  0 rom

$ uname -a
Linux agnirudra.xxx 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Sep 9 21:36:05
UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

$ cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.5 (Final)

$ yum history info 1 | grep xfsprogs | fpaste
Uploading (0.2KiB)...
http://ur1.ca/jiikv -> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/173636/14220298

It's came from CentOS 6.4, xfsprogs default stock 6.4, as you mentioned
before.

On 01/23/2015 10:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/23/15 9:40 AM, Dewangga Bachrul Alam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sorry, didnt fill any information here, but here is my nodes details.
>>
>> $ uname -a
>> Linux catalyst-db01.jkt3d.xxx 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Dec
>> 17 01:55:02 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> $ cat /etc/redhat-release
>> CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
>>
>> The xfs and partition table build from anaconda from first install,
>> instalation came from CentOS 6.6. But it's weird, only this node has 4k
>> sector size, the others is 512.
>>
>> catalyst-db01$ yum history info 1 | grep xfsprogs | fpaste
>> Uploading (0.2KiB)...
>> http://ur1.ca/jihyu -> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/173606/27434142
> 
> so xfsprogs v3.1.1
> 
> This went into v3.1.8:
> 
> commit 287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f
> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Thu Mar 1 22:46:35 2012 -0600
> 
>     mkfs.xfs: properly handle physical sector size
>     
>     This splits the fs_topology structure "sectorsize" into
>     logical & physical, and gets both via blkid_get_topology().
>     
>     This primarily allows us to default to using the physical
>     sectorsize for mkfs's "sector size" value, the fundamental
>     size of any IOs the filesystem will perform.
>     
>     We reduce mkfs.xfs's "sector size" to logical if
>     a block size < physical sector size is specified.
>     This is suboptimal, but permissable.
>     
>     For block size < sector size, differentiate the error
>     message based on whether the sector size was manually
>     specified, or deduced.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> but was backported to the RHEL6 xfsprogs:
> 
> * Tue Sep 25 2012 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> 3.1.1-8
> - mkfs.xfs: better handle misaligned 4k devices (#836433)
> - mkfs.xfs: default to physical sectorsize (#836433)
> 
> So, not *exactly* a bug, because the assumption that 512-byte
> DIO will always work is not a good one, but the commit I mentioned
> in my first email will let 512-byte DIOs work again.
> 
> I'd tell you to file a bug with your RHEL support people, but
> Centos ... ;)  We probably should get that kernel commit into RHEL6
> if possible.  I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen other reports.
> 
> But, if you ever wind up with hard 4k/4k drives, your database
> still won't work.  On any filesystem.  :)
> 
> If you don't mind following up with this informtation in the other
> forum, that might help others.
> 
> -Eric
> 

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