| 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 12:55:47 -0700 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAJCQCtRUq9ozu74TBjm4G-yoC0kQa7Vr8nUTNzke6O7DTWQPXw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CAJCQCtQqseJ_75WSjqqNMmSjYW-0-L_cWBDDECRVOkiTmHLeVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54AC363E.1090109@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CAJCQCtRUq9ozu74TBjm4G-yoC0kQa7Vr8nUTNzke6O7DTWQPXw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
What's sectsz= used for? Historically this would be sectsz=512, bsize=4096 before AF hard drives appeared. So is sectsz used for optimizing sub blocksize changes? e.g. if only 50 bytes needs changing, the fs doesn't need to read modify and write the entire 4096 block, just change the affected sector? If that's true, then sectsz=512 for a 4096 physical sector drive would cause a lot of in-drive RMW, depending on the workdlow. On older AF drives this can be a huge penalty hit. Chris Murphy |
| Previous by Date: | Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives?, Chris Murphy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS corrupt after RAID failure and resync, David Raffelt |
| 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?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |