From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.bitfolk.com (use.bitfolk.com [85.119.80.223]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9FD1DDCB for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=85.119.80.223 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705490508; cv=none; b=AejNGALLPyFytF3OQ2Dw/UKNQuWKUNXAhG7rZwFZeKaG0dQJUhaepRXmU1w2HJemE2GSEBHN9DvaKMR/hKtFopM0Gwcy9CQdL+9cB5iJPHQq0M/OdvLiEKFACcjAlSQ20iL69ySCcukH+deb+ZvpoU5F6shooRaTlEZGLZjFYlk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705490508; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xjWGMTYlXhi9lFHtHRJV22aJcSv77hCIte7ymeyEKmA=; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To:OpenPGP:X-URL:X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP:X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: X-SA-Exim-Scanned; b=CxX7Vp8ekprjlWtUON3CMFFDiKZ9BmwwZNDUYiyI6cp1pG8tJJfRQKbBVLIaBcCtEe5kjuBuB2QKX4iPo/yLMLaXd63ZhXOPGnHGoNxLcN8aDPCR6Es9uB7dSoO9zdTwG3Y351ekRDYG9inCGxAOiBqHxJTQ+nN158aJV5jeTE8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=strugglers.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=strugglers.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strugglers.net header.i=@strugglers.net header.b=U83tJv4E; arc=none smtp.client-ip=85.119.80.223 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=strugglers.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=strugglers.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strugglers.net header.i=@strugglers.net header.b="U83tJv4E" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strugglers.net; s=alpha; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References :Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender:Reply-To :Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-To; bh=xjWGMTYlXhi9lFHtHRJV22aJcSv77hCIte7ymeyEKmA=; b=U83tJv4E+l70gbKvG9R2+t8C2X iXPiwTjzbbFyiGnnwM9Nh4rrSeLhlVKKv839aox05M6gH+dcYDu0yZ1rGlxDpG2+yuXooYPBPobsT lKc5l6dlDA6krED3ZIhh3CJeI3rzRb0qsqQvIHJ1kCXuTz8sLATB0MRWiIpqelIgkRoRiR5f4DSCR bdJLHIMBbMftcec+bIvXUO0z/e5d/SVk+T4ZuoeFfO0gKMZisiM29VFEHq3RcibMd1wnKtJsIgico 230E8O2lH1B1il/5bl+CNH7NFDfGCWPux0i5OSK9iTkpRKRTYxbr/tDuo/g6+kPH+XPMTaT9aKS0e nCzabwag==; Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rQ3zL-0004gp-BI; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:21:43 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:21:43 +0000 From: Andy Smith To: Zdenek Kabelac Cc: linux-lvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Any way in LVM to deal with 512e vs 4Kn physical devices? Message-ID: References: <451707ab-ec8e-8f19-6813-445a184fda3a@service4.ru> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-lvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@strugglers.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.bitfolk.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Hi Zdenek, On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Lvm tool as such doesn't really have any problems with mixing 4K and 512b > disks within a single VG That's interesting, though in my case I have done a block-based copy of an LV from a system where all PVs are 512b to one where all PVs are 4K. So out of interest, what does LVM do when one PV within same VG says 512b and another says 4K - just pass on 512b for every LV I assume, unless allow_mixed_block_size is set as you mention? Thanks, Andy