linux-ext4 - Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100930163047.GA4098@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:30:47 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.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 04:36:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Ok, then it sounds like mkfs.ext4's refusal to make fs blocksize less
> than device physical sectorsize without -F is broken, and that should
> be removed.  I'd say issue a warning in the case but if there's a 16k
> physical device maybe there's no point in warning either?

If the device physical sectorsize is that big, should we perhaps use
that as a hint to align writes to that blocks aligned with that
physical sectorsize?  Right now we use the optimal I/O size, but if
the optimal I/O size is not specified and the physical sectorsize is,
say, 16k or 32k, maybe we should use to calculate for
s_raid_stripe_width?

						- 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