From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECCE7F56 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 02:35:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF988F8033 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 00:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from awesome.dsw2k3.info (awesome.dsw2k3.info [217.188.63.246]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wMj1GsnXLxp0pENj (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:35:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:35:07 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer Subject: Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives? Message-ID: <20150106083507.GA9943@citd.de> References: <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AA0A93.2010204@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54AA0A93.2010204@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: Hillel Lubman , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 04.01.2015 21:52, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 01/04/2015 06:56 PM, Hillel Lubman wrote: > ... > > Looking around I saw some references that it's preferable to use sector > > size (sectsz) of 4 KB when creating XFS partitions on hybrid (512e) > > advanced format hard drives and also some mentions of making that a > > default in mkfs.xfs. However I noticed that my current mkfs.xfs (3.2.1) > > used with current Debian testing (Linux 3.16.0) still uses 512 B sectors > > by default. > ... > > Can you please clarify what after all is the recommended sector size for > > such drives and why isn't it a default in mkfs.xfs (since supposedly > > defaults are generally recommended optimal settings unless you have some > > special use case). > ... > > XFS sectsz is unimportant with these drives. What matters is that any > partitions you create start and end on 4KB boundaries. This will > prevent adjacent hardware sector RMW internal to the drive. XFS writes > in 4KB filesystem blocks on Linux. As long as the fsblocks are aligned > to the 4KB hardware sectors there's nothing more you can do to avoid > performance penalties with these drives. Not in my experience. My first (and lying about it) AF HDD had horrible write performance until i re'mkfs.xfs'ed it with 4k sector-size. And yes the aligned was 4k. But that was many years ago and i don't know if newer XFS (IIRC that was before delay-log) would behave better. But as all of my storage after the first AF HDD was either an AF HDD or a SSD i have been formating everything with 4k sector-size for years. -- Matthias _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs