From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mr001msb.fastweb.it ([85.18.95.85]:45487 "EHLO mr001msb.fastweb.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751231AbdIPQnY (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:43:24 -0400 Subject: Re: XFS and sector size on thin volumes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 18:43:20 +0200 From: Gionatan Danti In-Reply-To: References: <20170909231215.GK17782@dastard> <0c59ba403f83e571d695a716ccad5d0a@assyoma.it> <20170909235323.GL17782@dastard> <838841738c3d8ca84328075615f95475@assyoma.it> <9d6b72e9-37ca-70f9-a40d-62ceaafc9db6@sandeen.net> Message-ID: <1357a2ee8280242c68d92cd4aba06f51@assyoma.it> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, g.danti@assyoma.it Il 12-09-2017 07:24 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: > Hi Eric, > so no performance decrease is expected by letting the journal to be > aligned to 512 byte boundary, even on an underlying 512e/4K disk? > > Thanks. Hi all and sorry for the bump... So, just to be sure: there is *no* performance penalty in creating an XFS filesystem with 512B sector size on a 512e/4Kn disk (which is not recognized as an AF disk due to the ZVOL in-between)? Or should I use "-b size=4k" with mkfs.xfs? Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8