From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E237F67 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:23:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5053304048 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SAjHxbTzXPnxZdCX for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:23:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54AC363E.1090109@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:23:42 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What is a recommended XFS sector size for hybrid (512e) advanced format hard drives? References: <1806495.BCZcrVVEOf@shtub-cm> <54AC1511.1060908@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: 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: Chris Murphy Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 1/6/15 1:05 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> however, some drives lie about these sizes, and then mkfs.xfs can't know. >> Try the blockdev command above to see. > > blockdev and parted seem to get this wrong for a device for which > smartctl and hdparm get correct I don't think they get it wrong, they are just reporting what the drive says over that interface. I ... don't actually know where smartctl/hdparm get the values, vs. the values exported to blockdev. Is the drive reporting different values over different query interfaces? Hrm. mkfs.xfs uses the same interface as used by blockdev. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs