From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:38:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ED51899.7000706@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1r50qhmte.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
On 11/29/11 11:15 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> writes:
>
> Eric> It seems that we should be checking for any alignment offsets in
> Eric> libxfs then, too; if there IS an offset, then perhaps 4k is the
> Eric> wrong answer, (perhaps there is no right answer) but if there is
> Eric> NO offset, 4k should be the right choice, yes?
>
> In most cases the partitioning/DM tools should give you a 0 offset. But
> it would a good idea to at least print a warning if lbs != pbs and
> offset > 0.
Right, Dave's concern was for when the partitioning tools didn't do the
job, we don't want to break fs consistency guarantees...
Dave, does checking for an offset before choosing 4k sectors seem
sufficient to you?
>
> Eric> And if the drive is broken then c'est la vie?
>
> Yes :)
>
>
> FWIW, the reason 4KB lbs drives are having a revival in the is that
> there is not a lot of confidence in 512e for the enterprise. Many
> vendors won't support them in servers due to correctness concerns and
> lack of performance predictability.
Imagine. :)
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-29 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-24 19:20 [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-24 19:50 ` Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-27 1:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-27 23:05 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-27 23:50 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-28 7:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-28 16:08 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-11-28 16:11 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-29 17:15 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-11-29 17:38 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2011-11-30 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-30 15:03 ` Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-28 16:56 ` Greg Freemyer
2011-11-28 7:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4ED51899.7000706@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=cmaiolino@redhat.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox