From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues. Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:00:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4B9DB0F2.7060808@zytor.com> References: <4B947393.2050002@kernel.org> <1158166a1003100114j6ea329fbh84bfad65dcac90bf@mail.gmail.com> <4B9D8BB2.1010507@zytor.com> <201003150326.22262.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201003150326.22262.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Denys Vlasenko Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Tejun Heo , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Daniel Taylor , Jeff Garzik , Mark Lord , tytso@mit.edu, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , irtiger@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox , aschnell@suse.de, knikanth@suse.de, jdelvare@suse.de List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 03/14/2010 07:26 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> >> Yes, but it does squat for a flash disk that wants, say, 256K alignment. > > 4K makes sense. 256K not so much. > > 256K alignment is hard to swallow for a lot of reasons anyway. > Unless the filesystem packs small files into blocks a-la reiserfs, > 256K block filesystems will be very inefficient for a typical > storage scenarios. > Noone has talked about using 256K filesystem blocks. The fact of the matter, though, is that both flash and RAID have much larger alignment requirements than a mere 4K for optimal performance. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.