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 6BC1B9467 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:22:16 +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=1705476138; cv=none; b=I/aBTV4aaPy7iXt+4HQhMc8XnesmOqRpVXLbn7CkWkkRk0gxE8acFCxuTJa5xrVzHfAB/pRJAgoaBcZ8ibNTTlWUag6Xh0KdvFXQ2RAxVbtRhP19lEV4ijrwDBgDIx0LDX7FzEvaQjLG3c0lAUXVoiDe/myVAt4Qaeamf9lY5bk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705476138; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C2PEAY8eLlLF4JF97SjDORLQoQ5nl5iTx0JzHfMJW38=; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP:X-URL: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP:X-SA-Exim-Mail-From:X-SA-Exim-Scanned; b=hhaZCLBDbK4l7Au8O8xoJ+t9frKsRkrhQ+E90Vb3J76LWYWhLk9W9NT/pUXGI7LYIY2Q91ym7fBT7t6gcQMp2XiBk1HxBMRzOrpNK4HgnNnjm6uS/KwIHmItt1lCqpL5z04hLE3VEu7i/qbHuIZJt+0A0ivv3/cKQaOSDeqPtws= 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=BYyvaUiO; 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="BYyvaUiO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strugglers.net; s=alpha; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-To; bh=4zIm/NOpJHsE36PFI+4FBgAucEZZ/gjegG2/sXl5BjA=; b=BYyvaUiO+MVlMSQeoE+st683Z0 FSTmCh4UopNASoYZy6caW8W6rB+0AZvMjPbQpEYkevCeYNKeaIE8zbOalwkC3+jwt3j4WBXBjVZR5 HRHIGrTHxf6KEbu7yvCvNPwdj/xhwsBj9lMw2BFCtLIFGmsVdyK7AahQzolZgSE+pcqm+JhmNa+iD 7bEMTCvhuix+0UcnUAZosKXvtxbUVr7BwIls5NT3n7JxewWe55eqqXlwzS28Vyk4uLWTk1X6TqpWn GxnRWrtrF84iL9ybuIUpwuZXwKFH1ErD7OYEGnoceiQhhP4bOWhdnqXsYVHXu8ctKU1HObKZzZgZy 6e+ucbaQ==; Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rQ0Fa-0006Zc-5Q; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:22:14 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:22:14 +0000 From: Andy Smith To: Phillip Susi Cc: linux-lvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Any way in LVM to deal with 512e vs 4Kn physical devices? Message-ID: References: <87y1cp9lwi.fsf@vps.thesusis.net> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Phillip, On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:13:15PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:24:29PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: > > No, it wouldn't be a problem without the partition table. ext4 uses its > > own block size, which is pretty much always 4k. It doesn't know or care > > about the underlying disk logical sector size. > > I've found quite a few people having similar problems to me so I'm > not sure about this, but I haven't had chance to test it yet. I > will try it out before I explore hdparm. I've tested ext4 directly on the LV with no partition table now and you're correct - no issues there! Apologies for doubting you - so many different vague accounts of issues out there. So, the actual problem here is something about the MBR partition table. Off-topic now for this list but I wonder if there is a safe and reliable way to modify such a partition table after sync to allow this to work… Thanks, Andy