From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Asdo Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 3.1.2 - A tool for managing Soft RAID under Linux Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:24:39 +0100 Message-ID: <4B98EF17.8040100@shiftmail.org> References: <19351.10758.612499.310262@notabene.brown> <4B98D322.7010101@shiftmail.org> <20100311122947.GA20914@maude.comedia.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <20100311122947.GA20914@maude.comedia.it> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Luca Berra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:25:22PM +0100, Asdo wrote: >> I remember some discussion about alignment for 1.1 and 1.2: is it >> possible on 1.2 to guarantee alignment of RAID device on the physical >> devices? >> 4K alignment would be needed on SSDs and 2TB disks w/ 4k physical >> 512b logical emulation. Actually on SSDs the alignment could be even >> more than 4k, I am not sure. > is there any problems with this commit? > http://neil.brown.name/git?p=mdadm;a=commit;h=a380e2751efea7dfe8acf0b95419c65ccacfa7cf > > Oh it IS aligned then >> Should we bypass the defaults and put 1.0 metadata on those? >> What was the downside of 1.0 so that it was not made default? > this has been discussed to boredom I'm sorry