From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: thin provisioned LUN support Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:21:13 -0600 Message-ID: <1225988473.4703.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4913028B.6010405@redhat.com> <49130CF2.6010403@hp.com> <491313E5.6060505@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ric Wheeler , David Woodhouse , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Black_David@emc.com, "Martin K. Petersen" , Tom Coughlan , Matthew Wilcox , Jens Axboe To: jim owens Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:38583 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbYKFQVT (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:21:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <491313E5.6060505@hp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:57 -0500, jim owens wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > > By the way, the latest (from 2 days ago) version of the Thin > > Provisioning proposal is here: > > > > http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/document.08/08-149r4.pdf > > If I understand the spec [ not likely ;) ] ... > > jim owens wrote: > > > And the vendors need to provide the device trim chunk size in > > a standard way (like scsi geometry) to the filesystem. > > It may be that the READ CAPACITY (16) provides the trim chunk > size via the "logical blocks per physical block exponent". > > But since this is just a T10 spec, I would want that > interpretation verified by the array vendors. This could be ... I think it's original intention was to allow us to figure out that we had a 4k sector disk emulating a 512b sector one. However, it's also a useful way to parametrise the erase block size for SSDs as well as the array track size. James