[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100928205741.GA22257@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:57:41 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:15:45AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Actually, -F allows one to override fs blocksize < physical_block_size.
>
> In this instance we have the following:
> # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/physical_block_size
> 1048576
> # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/logical_block_size
> 512
>
> > Should we change something?
>
> Unclear. I could see maybe automatically capping the fs block size at
> 4096 if physical_block_size is larger and is a multiple of 4096?
Can we decide soon what the right thing should be? I'm about to
release e2fsrogs 1.41.13, and if I should put in some sanity checking
code so mke2fs does something sane when it sees a 1M physical block
size, I can do that.
Or if the kernel is going to do that, it's fine too....
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists