From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n6KBDYPc075583 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:13:34 -0500 Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0D177A9A1DA for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.162.198]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CVFdk9CFZITtvwQd for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv1.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CAA4DAF for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (unknown [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14F9440017E for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:14:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: does XFS support block sizes other than 512 bytes? Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:14:09 +0200 References: <4A6119B5.6000706@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <4A6119B5.6000706@tlinx.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200907201314.09615@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6572752258791627075==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============6572752258791627075== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2412106.dS2Xou9ea9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart2412106.dS2Xou9ea9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Samstag 18 Juli 2009 Linda A. Walsh wrote: > This one's a bit more specific than the last. =A0If memory serves me, > XFS supported differing block sizes (which you could do on a hardware > format of a SCSI drive) back on IRIX. =A0But when first ported to Linux > it didn't work. =A0Was that ever fixed? =A0I seem to remember that going > to 1-2K block sizes gave and extra 10%, and it almost seems logical > that going to a 4kK block size would be ideal for xfs (presuming your > disk doesn't start getting errors, then it might get harder to remap > sectors and you'd hit hard disk failure (w/o remappable sectors) > sooner. > > But at least 1K might be a reasonable tradeoff? =A0Been quite a while > since I tried it and don't even know if the SAS drives allow it (if > they do, I wonder if the newer SATA drives do?) XFS can only use sector sizes that the hard disks provide. There will be=20 4K drives from vendors "soon", and XFS is prepared to use that.=20 mfg zmi =2D-=20 // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 --nextPart2412106.dS2Xou9ea9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkpkUYEACgkQzhSR9xwSCbRGagCg9WRCoLYWP3tgm0aAfjhdoKPX 1uEAoIHDy5vkl1cWj2ROwcblaZXonml3 =V2bs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2412106.dS2Xou9ea9-- --===============6572752258791627075== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============6572752258791627075==--