From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D477F3F for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:46:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C25BAC004 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id t928khS2zfvXLgdG (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:46:05 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfsprogs: ignore stripe geom if sunit or swidth == physical sector size Message-ID: <20141030114605.GA5914@bfoster.bfoster> References: <544FD3E1.1060000@redhat.com> <20141029183721.GA4226@bfoster.laptop> <54513635.7050703@sandeen.net> <54515E4E.8010500@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54515E4E.8010500@hardwarefreak.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stan Hoeppner Cc: Eric Sandeen , Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:38:22PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 10/29/2014 01:47 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 10/29/14 1:37 PM, Brian Foster wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:35:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> Today, this geometry: > >>> > >>> # modprobe scsi_debug opt_blks=2048 dev_size_mb=2048 > >>> # blockdev --getpbsz --getss --getiomin --getioopt /dev/sdd > >>> 512 > >>> 512 > >>> 512 > >>> 1048576 > >>> > >>> will result in a warning at mkfs time, like this: > >>> > >>> # mkfs.xfs -f -d su=64k,sw=12 -l su=64k /dev/sdd > >>> mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe width 1536 is not the same as the volume stripe width 2048 > >>> > >>> because our geometry discovery thinks it looks like a > >>> valid striping setup which the commandline is overriding. > >>> However, a stripe unit of 512 really isn't indicative of > >>> a proper stripe geometry. > >>> > >> > >> So the assumption is that the storage reports a non-physical block size > >> for minimum and optimal I/O sizes for geometry detection. There was a > >> real world scenario of this, right? Any idea of the configuration > >> details (e.g., raid layout) that resulted in an increased optimal I/O > >> size but not minimum I/O size? > > > > Stan? :) > > Yeah, it was pretty much what you pasted sans the log su, and it was a > device-mapper device: > > # mkfs.xfs -d su=64k,sw=12 /dev/dm-0 > What kind of device is dm-0? I use linear devices regularly and I don't see any special optimal I/O size reported: # blockdev --getpbsz --getiomin --getioopt --getbsz /dev/mapper/test-scratch 512 512 0 4096 Brian > -- > Stan > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs