lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:30:34 +0900
From:	Jens Axboe <>
To:	Mike Snitzer <>
CC:	"Martin K. Petersen" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size

On 2010-09-28 08:15, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27 2010 at  6:36pm -0400,
> Martin K. Petersen <> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <> writes:
>> Jens> Does mkfs do the right thing?
>> Depends on which mkfs it is. Mike has tested things and can chip in
>> here...
> I haven't test all mkfs.* but...
> mkfs.xfs just works with 1M physical_block_size.
> mkfs.ext4 won't by default but -F "fixes" that:
> # mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -F /dev/mapper/20017380023360006
> mke2fs 1.41.12 (17-May-2010)
> Warning: specified blocksize 4096 is less than device physical sectorsize 1048576, forced to continue

OK, so that's not exactly doing the right thing, but at least you can
work around it with a parameter. So I'd say that is good enough.

> I'll check fdisk and parted tomorrow (I know lvm2 doesn't look at
> physical_block_size).


Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists