From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
"James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:24:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101001142441.GF21129@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100930173342.GB31945@redhat.com>
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:33:43PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> Yes optimal_io_size may be 0. But minimum_io_size will always be scaled
> up to at least match physical_block_size.
Woah! Are we sure we want to do that? According to Jens, 8k physical
blockes are here already and 16k physical blocks sizes are right
around the corner. If we scale minimum_io_size up to the physical
block size, then even though these devices will have 512 or 4k logical
block sizes, minimum_io_size will be 16k? That sounds wrong,
incorrect, and given that the Linux VM can't handle file system block
sizes greater than page size. And if we scale the minimum_io_size to
the physical block size, mke2fs will refuse to create a 4k blocksize
filesystem --- since presumably "minimum io size" means we can't do
I/O's smaller than that.
Please tell me you meant to say __logical__ blocksize above?
Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-01 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1285605664-27027-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com>
[not found] ` <4CA0CC38.5010804@fusionio.com>
[not found] ` <yq1pqvzcddq.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
[not found] ` <4CA118FF.1080100@fusionio.com>
[not found] ` <yq18w2mddav.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
2010-09-27 23:15 ` I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28 4:30 ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28 5:20 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-28 14:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28 20:57 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-28 21:24 ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 21:36 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 16:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-30 17:07 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 17:33 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-01 14:24 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2010-10-01 22:19 ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-02 2:31 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-02 3:03 ` Daniel Taylor
2010-10-04 19:49 ` Martin K. Petersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101001142441.GF21129@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox