From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfsprogs: ignore stripe geom if sunit or swidth == physical sector size
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:47:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54513635.7050703@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141029183721.GA4226@bfoster.laptop>
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? :)
> This seems reasonable to me and the code looks fine, save a trailing
> whitespace instance below.
Doh! >:( ;) thanks.
> I'm just curious if there are any weird
> corner cases where there's value in the reported optimal I/O size or the
> real world situation was just noise.
yeah, hard to know - How *would* you use it?
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-29 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-28 17:35 [PATCH 1/2] xfsprogs: ignore stripe geom if sunit or swidth == physical sector size Eric Sandeen
2014-10-28 17:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfsprogs: don't warn about log sunit size if it was auto-discovered Eric Sandeen
2014-10-29 18:38 ` Brian Foster
2014-10-29 18:45 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-10-29 19:57 ` Brian Foster
2014-10-29 18:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfsprogs: ignore stripe geom if sunit or swidth == physical sector size Brian Foster
2014-10-29 18:47 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-10-29 21:38 ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-10-30 11:46 ` Brian Foster
2014-10-30 19:15 ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-10-30 19:50 ` Brian Foster
2014-10-30 20:15 ` Stan Hoeppner
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=54513635.7050703@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=stan@hardwarefreak.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