From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o28Mhskr077484 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:43:54 -0600 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9E8131D2009C for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:45:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id M0N7FVAZrbXik2ht for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:45:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B957E03.9090000@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:45:23 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What are the correct mkfs.xfs parameters for a lying WD-EARS HDD? References: <20100308221044.GA17830@citd.de> In-Reply-To: <20100308221044.GA17830@citd.de> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > Hi > > > More than a month ago i bought 4 Western Digital WD15EARS (1.5 TB) which > are (AFAIK) the first general/commercial available 4k sector SATA-HDDs. > > Unfortunatly the HDDs lie about the 4k physical sector size and the most > prominent drawback is a worse than abysmal delete performance. > ("Normal" Read & Write-performance is OK) > > So if i wanted to (re-)mkfs the filesystems what would the correct > parameters be? > > Kernel/Userspace is pretty recent (Debian-SID): > mkfs.xfs version 3.1.1, kernel v2.6.33, util-linux 2.16.0 > Not that that should matter when the HDDs lies. Recent kernel+util-linux-ng++fdisk+parted+xfsprogs -should- do the right thing for you.... Oh, but this was maybe the drive that didn't output the right stuff when queried. Make sure your partitions, if any, are on 4k boundaries.(*) older fdisk at least won't do this by default, not sure about parted. once that is done, tell mkfs.xfs "-s size=4096" to set the 4k sector size (again, all-upstream should do this magically for sane drives) -Eric (*)unless the drive has an offset to make 512-sector 63 line up on a nice boundary... in which case I guess you could experiment with perf both ways to be sure... > > Bis denn > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs