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 o7VL131M082597 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:01:04 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2E02B1239EA2 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id zMpMGHARMLHgHQ2n for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.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 mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0457E616 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:01:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFAA9401C3D for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:01:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: 4K drives, sectsz=512, bsize=4096 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:01:34 +0200 References: <201008300956.21264@zmi.at> In-Reply-To: <201008300956.21264@zmi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201008312301.38103@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3508048409415386583==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============3508048409415386583== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4789981.Hv5HgZVOYP"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart4789981.Hv5HgZVOYP Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Montag, 30. August 2010 Michael Monnerie wrote: > Will there be any real difference if I re-format with sectsz=3D4096?=20 > AFAIK, XFS will do I/O based on block size, so the sector size > doesn't do any harm. Is that correct? =20 Nobody? Is my assumption correct that a change in sectsz from 512 to=20 4096 would be of no difference for the filesystem? =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=C3=BCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei H=C3=A4user zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/ --nextPart4789981.Hv5HgZVOYP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkx9bbIACgkQzhSR9xwSCbSSlwCg4fgx6/x7zRWPoxiJAMLTiBZg 5vIAnj55XDF+cvyNkzRydIufR6eZon38 =B8Ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4789981.Hv5HgZVOYP-- --===============3508048409415386583== 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 --===============3508048409415386583==--