* Re: [PATCH 1/1] mkfs.xfs fix sunit size on 512e and 4kN disks.
[not found] ` <yvjbtwfl4wfctmowoxpkzqhlqt42r2sns6p3t4j5ge3abv2ydr@degtb3bjzp4c>
@ 2026-06-23 14:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2026-06-23 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara
Cc: Carlos Maiolino, Lukas Herbolt, hch, aalbersh, linux-xfs,
Darrick J. Wong, ailiopoulos, linux-scsi
On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 12:05:25PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > by accident. Properly aligning it to 64k to match its min_io_size is the
> > right thing to do to avoid lots of RMW cycles for once. But I'm pretty
> > sure you already know that :)
>
> Yes, I agree the XFS logging with the old defaults performed well on that
> machine only due to the battery backed cache.
Which to me suggests it is reporting the wrong min_io_size. But good
luck getting RAID controller firmware fixed. Although maybe we should
quirk it in the driver?
> > Well, I don't think 'fsync heavy' applications are the default, or if
> > they are, specially on high-end systems, then I'd argue the application
> > ought to know what it's doing. I do agree that's no universal win
> > anywhere and yet seem to fix the sunit to the hardware reported size is
> > the right thing to do here.
>
> Fair.
I think the real question is if the value/defaults have any benefits
for this setup. And I somehow doubt it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread